ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th May 2019, 12:15 PM   #41
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,438
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Because we all realize what CA legislators are trying to do, and we think its a bad idea. Regardless of how you frame it.

Voters do not have a right to know the candidates Tax records, its highly debatable as to whether they are actually relevant. Many candidates have decided to release for marketing purposes.
Who made you the arbitrator of state requirements to get on the POTUS ballot?

And they're not trying to keep him off the ballot. You are using a false narrative.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:18 PM   #42
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,438
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
California wants to make Trump release his tax returns by threatening to keep him off the ballot. .
Like I said, people are changing that to the false narrative they just want him off the ballot.

And even if Congress is in a better position, CA is calling attention to the issue.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:22 PM   #43
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
how did voters acquire the right to have the name of their favorite candidate pre-printed on the ballot, instead of having to write it in themselves?
That might be a good question for someone who has that position.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:23 PM   #44
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Does the Supreme Court have a say in how States run their Primaries? If so wouldn't this open up other challenges?
This is either a really interesting question or boring depending on your interests.

The Primaries are kind of extra constitutional. As far as I know, most democracies have the parties choose their candidates behind closed doors as the US used to do in smoke filled rooms and caucuses. The Primaries were added as a reform to let the rank and file members vote on them. They're basically the state running the election for the leadership of a private club.

So, based on that, you'd think neither the Scotus nor the feds have much say. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment could be interpreted to give them some say though.

Even if this law passes, the CA republicans could still just elect their candidate the old fashioned way at the state convention or by mail or however they want really. There isn't actually any need for or federal constitutionally mandated reason for the primaries. Its primary effect would be to give a primary challenger a leg up as they would appear on the ballot but trump wouldn't.

As to the general, this is likely to have zero impact, which may be why they decided on the primary. Its less likely to be overturned by the courts.

Side note, the Federal constitution only says the manner of chusing electors will be up to the states.....or state legislatures. The States have most just chusen them by popular vote since some time in the mid 1800s. If they were still chusen by the state senates, Trump wouldn't be president.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:24 PM   #45
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,443
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
But such efforts are pointless precisely because of the EC. If California bans Trump from the ballot, it doesn't change his odds of winning the presidency one whit, because he is never going to win California unless it's a landslide for the GOP. Similarly, if Alabama and Mississippi ban the Democratic nominee from the ballot, it's not an obstacle to the Democrat winning. Under a popular vote system, such efforts could have a very significant impact on the outcome.
Okay, I'll concede that point. I didn't understand that this was your argument.

ETA: Actually, the bill is about primaries. The EC is not really relevant there. Trump won the primary in CA handily.

Last edited by phiwum; 6th May 2019 at 12:32 PM.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:26 PM   #46
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Because we all realize what CA legislators are trying to do, and we think its a bad idea. Regardless of how you frame it.

Voters do not have a right to know the candidates Tax records, its highly debatable as to whether they are actually relevant. Many candidates have decided to release for marketing purposes.
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Who made you the arbitrator of state requirements to get on the POTUS ballot?

And they're not trying to keep him off the ballot. You are using a false narrative.
I do know how what you have written follows from what I wrote. For instance, where did I say, "CA is trying to keep Trump off of the Ballot"?

I'm not even convinced there actually trying to get him to release his tax records let alone actually keep him off the ballot.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:27 PM   #47
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,452
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Like I said, people are changing that to the false narrative they just want him off the ballot.
I think an argument can be made that Trump knows California is unwinnable, and therefore no incentive to comply with the new requirement on his part exists, so just blowing off the new requirement is a predictable enough response that legislators' support for this bill can reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to keep Trump off the ballot. At the very least they are equally as happy to have Trump kept off the ballot as they are to have his tax returns released.

In fact if we're to grant that Trump knows California would never vote for him anyway, it would be an excellent campaign strategy to pointedly refuse to release his tax returns and then use his absence from California's ballot as rhetorical proof of a "rigged election".
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:28 PM   #48
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,443
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Because we all realize what CA legislators are trying to do, and we think its a bad idea. Regardless of how you frame it.

Voters do not have a right to know the candidates Tax records, its highly debatable as to whether they are actually relevant. Many candidates have decided to release for marketing purposes.
Voters have no right to see the tax records just because no one has decided to grant that right. The Trump presidency is a pretty good argument in favor of making candidates' tax records available. We know that he was pursuing a lucrative deal with Moscow late in the campaign and that Russian money has been a big source of income for him. We know that he favors Russia like no other president.

Knowing more about the financial connections would be useful information.

That said, I don't think it's something that states should pursue unilaterally, at least not in the general election (is this about the general or the primary?). It's not unreasonable to think that at the federal level, a rule requiring disclosure of tax statements for presidential nominees is sensible.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:30 PM   #49
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,443
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
California wants to make Trump release his tax returns by threatening to keep him off the ballot.

Congress is in a far better position to compel Trump to release his tax returns. They have subpoena power.
Do they have the right to publish the tax returns? I have no idea. It would certainly be a power open to abuse.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:30 PM   #50
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,438
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I do know how what you have written follows from what I wrote. For instance, where did I say, "CA is trying to keep Trump off of the Ballot"?

I'm not even convinced there actually trying to get him to release his tax records let alone actually keep him off the ballot.



SG: Why are you all repeating the false narrative here?
ahhell: ... Because we all realize what CA legislators are trying to do...

If you meant something else, by all means just say so.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:37 PM   #51
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,125
"People shouldn't consider a candidate who won't release their tax returns."

"Not everybody feels that strongly about it. What are you gonna do?"

"Make it illegal for people to consider a candidate who won't release their tax returns."
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:37 PM   #52
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,452
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Do they have the right to publish the tax returns?
Directly? I don't know - I don't think so. But, if they looked shady, they could be referred to federal prosecutors; and if the federal prosecutors use them as a basis for any kind of charges, they'd (or whatever is shady about them at least) would eventually become public record.

I'm not sure, but if they look shady enough, Congress could begin its own investigation and then yes, they would become part of the Congressional record at that point if they are entered into evidence.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 6th May 2019 at 12:39 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:44 PM   #53
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,443
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"People shouldn't consider a candidate who won't release their tax returns."

"Not everybody feels that strongly about it. What are you gonna do?"

"Make it illegal for people to consider a candidate who won't release their tax returns."
Alternatively:

People should have information about candidates' financial entanglements, especially with hostile foreign nations. The simplest source of such information is a tax return. So candidates should face a penalty (not appearing on a ballot) unless they agree to release their returns.

It is cute that you think the law is about making it illegal to vote for a candidate who doesn't release tax returns. You know damned well the bill does no such thing. Why the straw man?
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:59 PM   #54
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,438
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
...
It is cute that you think the law is about making it illegal to vote for a candidate who doesn't release tax returns. You know damned well the bill does no such thing. Why the straw man?
Because that is the right wing narrative.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 01:10 PM   #55
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,698
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Voters have no right to see the tax records just because no one has decided to grant that right.
Furthermore, this bill doesn’t grant them the right to see tax returns as Trump has the option to not appear on the ballot for the CA primary.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 01:14 PM   #56
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,698
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"People shouldn't consider a candidate who won't release their tax returns."

"Not everybody feels that strongly about it. What are you gonna do?"

"Make it illegal for people to consider a candidate who won't release their tax returns."
- this does not require anyone to look at the tax returns, so anyone who doesn't think they should be available can just not look at them.

- this does not make it illegal to consider a candidate who won't release their returns
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 02:34 PM   #57
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post



SG: Why are you all repeating the false narrative here?
ahhell: ... Because we all realize what CA legislators are trying to do...

If you meant something else, by all means just say so.
What I meant is, "we all know it ain't about keeping Trump of the Ballot or forcing him to release his tax records"

Its political grandstanding by CA legislators.

Edit, I should admit, I had an unstated major premise, we aren't all repeating a false narrative.

Granted, your narrative seems to be, "CA legislators are trying to get Trump to release is tax records by keeping him off the ballot if he doesn't."

Last edited by ahhell; 6th May 2019 at 02:38 PM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 02:39 PM   #58
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,489
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Okay, I'll concede that point. I didn't understand that this was your argument.

ETA: Actually, the bill is about primaries. The EC is not really relevant there. Trump won the primary in CA handily.
So in fact it is a useless bill from the folks who brought us the high-speed rail line to nowhere.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 02:41 PM   #59
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
So in fact it is a useless bill from the folks who brought us the high-speed rail line to nowhere.
Be fair, its the med-speed rail line from nowhere to somewhere nobody wants to go.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 03:38 PM   #60
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,438
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
What I meant is, "we all know it ain't about keeping Trump of the Ballot or forcing him to release his tax records"

Its political grandstanding by CA legislators.

Edit, I should admit, I had an unstated major premise, we aren't all repeating a false narrative.

Granted, your narrative seems to be, "CA legislators are trying to get Trump to release is tax records by keeping him off the ballot if he doesn't."
I can agree with that narrative.

I'm still leaning toward the narrative they really are trying to get him to reveal those returns.

One or the other, or both, I think are valid narratives.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 04:20 PM   #61
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,944
What kind of information do you think can be gained about a candidate from their tax returns? These returns were filed and met all legal requirements if they are available to be released, so you aren't going to find real evidence of money laundering or other illegal activities.

Bottom line for me is that tax returns are confidential and intimate. I don't think the State should be in the business of mandating the release of such information in order to be on a ballot. I don't buy the "If you have nothing to hide . . ." argument or the "I have a right to know," argument. By Federal law, you do not have the right to know what's in a tax return, that's the way it should be and it should be up to each candidate how much personal information they are willing to turn over. Then it's up to each voter to decide how important that information is to the calculus of where their vote will end up.

I also think that such a requirement could have a chilling effect on who would be willing to divulge such information in order to run for election.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 04:41 PM   #62
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,438
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
What kind of information do you think can be gained about a candidate from their tax returns? These returns were filed and met all legal requirements if they are available to be released, so you aren't going to find real evidence of money laundering or other illegal activities.

Bottom line for me is that tax returns are confidential and intimate. I don't think the State should be in the business of mandating the release of such information in order to be on a ballot. I don't buy the "If you have nothing to hide . . ." argument or the "I have a right to know," argument. By Federal law, you do not have the right to know what's in a tax return, that's the way it should be and it should be up to each candidate how much personal information they are willing to turn over. Then it's up to each voter to decide how important that information is to the calculus of where their vote will end up.

I also think that such a requirement could have a chilling effect on who would be willing to divulge such information in order to run for election.
We all know now what a liar the man is, so it won't be a revelation to find out he's no billionaire. But that might be one lie that bothers people more than some of the others. I think that's what Trump is most afraid of revealing. It would be a huge blow to his ego.

There will be information on where he's getting his money which might be revealed when we see the interest on loans he's taking a tax credit for.

Chances are very good he has falsely claimed charitable donations he didn't make. He's been caught in various tax schemes before. I'm not sure the IRS catches everything. But air it in public and a thousand internet detectives will sort it out in a hot minute.

Stuff like that.


As for confidential and intimate, screw that. The man is running for office in which he wields too much power to expect the same level of privacy as an average citizen.

And "chilling effect", OMG, you can't be serious. No other POTUS candidate has ever not revealed their tax records.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 6th May 2019 at 04:47 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 04:45 PM   #63
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,443
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
So in fact it is a useless bill from the folks who brought us the high-speed rail line to nowhere.
I don't see how that follows.

It is a bill intended to strongly encourage candidates to release their tax returns or face a reasonably stiff penalty in the primaries. It is not a guarantee that all candidates will do so.

Would you prefer harsher penalties than not appearing on the primary ballots? Or would you complain about those?

Again, I'm not defending the bill. My mind isn't made up. Now that I know a little bit more (especially that it applies only to the primaries), I tend to think it's a lot less ridiculous than I first thought.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 05:06 PM   #64
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,125
Primaries are party business. It's up to the party, not the state, to make this a requirement if they want. And it's up to the voters, not the state, to decide if it matters.

It's up to the state, as underwriter of the elections, to ensure that every candidate who meets the party requirements is included on the ballot. Ensuring that candidates who meet party requirements are kept off the ballot is perverse and undemocratic.

Last edited by theprestige; 6th May 2019 at 05:08 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 06:15 PM   #65
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,826
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Primaries are party business. It's up to the party, not the state, to make this a requirement if they want. And it's up to the voters, not the state, to decide if it matters.

It's up to the state, as underwriter of the elections, to ensure that every candidate who meets the party requirements is included on the ballot. Ensuring that candidates who meet party requirements are kept off the ballot is perverse and undemocratic.
Is it really up to the state to ensure who is included on the primary ballot? Evidence?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 06:36 PM   #66
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,489
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I don't see how that follows.

It is a bill intended to strongly encourage candidates to release their tax returns or face a reasonably stiff penalty in the primaries. It is not a guarantee that all candidates will do so.

Would you prefer harsher penalties than not appearing on the primary ballots? Or would you complain about those?

Again, I'm not defending the bill. My mind isn't made up. Now that I know a little bit more (especially that it applies only to the primaries), I tend to think it's a lot less ridiculous than I first thought.
It seems very unlikely to affect Trump at all (despite the thread title), unless he's in a real battle for the GOP nomination in 2020 Yes, if there is no incumbent Republican (say in 2024) it might have an impact. But the party could always circumvent the issue by declaring that they will not have a primary, but a caucus.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 06:39 PM   #67
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,629
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Primaries are party business. It's up to the party, not the state, to make this a requirement if they want. And it's up to the voters, not the state, to decide if it matters.

It's up to the state, as underwriter of the elections, to ensure that every candidate who meets the party requirements is included on the ballot. Ensuring that candidates who meet party requirements are kept off the ballot is perverse and undemocratic.
The American election process is already perverse and flawed democratically.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 07:47 PM   #68
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,944
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
We all know now what a liar the man is, so it won't be a revelation to find out he's no billionaire. But that might be one lie that bothers people more than some of the others. I think that's what Trump is most afraid of revealing. It would be a huge blow to his ego.
I'll grant you this one. This is probably a big reason he doesn't want his returns released. That and, I think an even bigger reason, the fact that the average person is going to see that he paid little to no tax (compared to income) because he takes full advantage of tax law. Even if everything he did was perfectly legal, it would be something his opponents could glom on to.

There will be information on where he's getting his money which might be revealed when we see the interest on loans he's taking a tax credit for.[/quote]1)You can't take a tax credit for personal loans. You would need to see his business returns for that kind of information -unless he's a sole proprietorship which is not at all likely. All that kind of information will be on the returns of all the business entities he controls.

Quote:
Chances are very good he has falsely claimed charitable donations he didn't make. He's been caught in various tax schemes before. I'm not sure the IRS catches everything. But air it in public and a thousand internet detectives will sort it out in a hot minute.
How is some internet rando is going to sort that out? They don't have access to the critical information needed to determine that: Bank records, chiefly.

Quote:
Stuff like that.
OK, not stuff that you can glean from a personal tax return, then.


Quote:
As for confidential and intimate, screw that. The man is running for office in which he wields too much power to expect the same level of privacy as an average citizen.

And "chilling effect", OMG, you can't be serious. No other POTUS candidate has ever not revealed their tax records.
"No other POTUS candidate," is exactly it. They volunteered that info. Trump didn't. He was free to do so at this point, so no chilling effect. Voters knew that he refused to release them and voted for him anyway.

But if there was a law that effectively forced all candidates to release their returns, then maybe Trump doesn't run. Which you might think is a perfectly good outcome given how you feel about Trump. But 1)You would effectively be disqualifying a candidate that was Constitutionally qualified and, indeed, elected and 2)You may feel differently if a perfectly good candidate that you do like decided not to run because they would have to release their returns.

I mean, maybe you personally wouldn't feel differently. Maybe one of your criteria for voting is: Must release 6 years of tax returns. But it's certainly not everyone's criteria and this election proved it. I do find it a little odd that the people who want this . . . well, if Trump did release tax returns it would have made zero difference in their vote. Would you have considered voting for Trump if he did?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 07:53 PM   #69
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,443
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Primaries are party business. It's up to the party, not the state, to make this a requirement if they want. And it's up to the voters, not the state, to decide if it matters.

It's up to the state, as underwriter of the elections, to ensure that every candidate who meets the party requirements is included on the ballot. Ensuring that candidates who meet party requirements are kept off the ballot is perverse and undemocratic.
If that's the law of the land, then the bill will be easily overturned.

If you think this is just how things should be, then your opinion doesn't really carry that much weight. If the state is funding the primary election process (and I really don't see why they do -- I'd rather the parties handled all of that themselves) then it seems to me that they have the right to set requirements as well. Surely, deadlines for filing are such requirements, regardless of what the party wants.

Here's what I learned about Massachusetts from Ballotpedia:
Quote:
In Massachusetts, the secretary of the commonwealth is authorized to determine which candidates are placed on the presidential primary ballot. Alternatively, a candidate may petition for placement on the primary ballot. At least 2,500 voters must sign this petition. An independent presidential candidate must petition for placement on the general election ballot. At least 10,000 voters must sign this petition. A write-in candidate must file paperwork with the secretary of the commonwealth in order to have his or her votes tallied.
Looks like Massachusetts has quite some say for who gets on the ballot, not just the party.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 08:23 PM   #70
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,384
@Ginger,

The White House and Great Right Wing Noise Machine absolutely HAVE TO create the narrative that it's a X number of Angry Democrats trying to keep Trump off the ballot so they have something to argue in the court of public opinion.

What they do not want to remind voters of is their real argument.... "Waaaah! I don't wanna show my tax returns and you can't make me!" Mind you, anyone who can read knows that's what Mnuchin and Barr (hereafter referred to by their real titles - Counsel for the President) are actually arguing in Congress.

For public consumption, though, they're trying, as usual, to control the language of the debate and thus the debate. They will have to fight this in several courts I'm pretty sure Illinois passed a similar act with little or no consternation, and other states will likely do so. California is a far better symbolic enemy for the Trumpistas, though.

And it's pretty slick, as usual. The party that has done more to place obstacles in the way of voters making choices is actually arguing for "fairness"? It's laughable but the loyal minions will keep hammering at it because they don't want us to see their real "legal" arguments later, which will be "Waaaah! I don't wanna and you can't make me!" because the liar in chief has found a convenient way to dodge his responsibility in providing evidence that he committed to provide. Sorta like his ironclad proof that he's going to give us any day now that millions of illegal votes were cast for Clinton, that his crackerjack investigators will provide evidence that Obama's birth certificate was forged, the he looked forward to having Mueller testify before Congress, and many others.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

Last edited by Foolmewunz; 6th May 2019 at 08:24 PM.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 08:24 PM   #71
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,438
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I'll grant you this one. This is probably a big reason he doesn't want his returns released. That and, I think an even bigger reason, the fact that the average person is going to see that he paid little to no tax (compared to income) because he takes full advantage of tax law. Even if everything he did was perfectly legal, it would be something his opponents could glom on to.
Your idealism is precious. This man has been busted for tax fraud schemes, caught dipping into his own charity for personal expenses which means he was declaring non-profit charity illegally.

Originally Posted by sg
There will be information on where he's getting his money which might be revealed when we see the interest on loans he's taking a tax credit for.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
1)You can't take a tax credit for personal loans. You would need to see his business returns for that kind of information -unless he's a sole proprietorship which is not at all likely. All that kind of information will be on the returns of all the business entities he controls.
Who said anything about personal loans? Those would be business loans and you most certainly can write the interest off as an expense against gross profit.

And unless he lists himself as an employee of his corporations and records a salary received, chances are good there is a lot of income coming in from self employment. For example, his 'brand' selling. He is certainly writing off expenses for that business.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
How is some internet rando is going to sort that out? They don't have access to the critical information needed to determine that: Bank records, chiefly.
Where have you been in the last decade? Who outed the fake letter Dan Rather thought was real about Bush getting out of military service? The people on the net I'm referring to dig up obscure evidence, they don't just spout opinions.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
OK, not stuff that you can glean from a personal tax return, then.
Blew that one, didn't ya.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
"No other POTUS candidate," is exactly it. They volunteered that info. Trump didn't. He was free to do so at this point, so no chilling effect. Voters knew that he refused to release them and voted for him anyway.

But if there was a law that effectively forced all candidates to release their returns, then maybe Trump doesn't run. Which you might think is a perfectly good outcome given how you feel about Trump. But 1)You would effectively be disqualifying a candidate that was Constitutionally qualified and, indeed, elected and 2)You may feel differently if a perfectly good candidate that you do like decided not to run because they would have to release their returns.

I mean, maybe you personally wouldn't feel differently. Maybe one of your criteria for voting is: Must release 6 years of tax returns. But it's certainly not everyone's criteria and this election proved it. I do find it a little odd that the people who want this . . . well, if Trump did release tax returns it would have made zero difference in their vote. Would you have considered voting for Trump if he did?


The election didn't prove **** except Trump was lying when he said he'd release those returns.

It's so bloody obvious how Trump TV works. He makes a promise, people vote believing that promise. Then he breaks the promise and claims people voted for him and they didn't care about his promise/tax returns.

Seems to have sold you that last line in the scheme.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 6th May 2019 at 08:26 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 08:29 PM   #72
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,384
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post



The election didn't prove **** except Trump was lying when he said he'd release those returns.

It's so bloody obvious how Trump TV works. He makes a promise, people vote believing that promise. Then he breaks the promise and claims people voted for him and they didn't care about his promise/tax returns.

Seems to have sold you that last line in the scheme.

[nostalgia]But he never said "I promise", did he? Huh? Huh? [/nostalgia]
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 08:37 PM   #73
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,249
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
If this gets smacked-down, at least it creates the precedent;
in an inverse situation, I'm not sure this Supreme Court would undo a restriction that favored Republicans.
I am quite certain they wouldn't. I have almost the same amount of respect for most of the court as I do for trumpf, the Senate majority and related. Which is none.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 08:42 PM   #74
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,249
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
If nothing else, California is showing why we still need the electoral college.
Fine - if no states get any special treatment and no states can compel the electors to vote in any way but their personal choice. As was originally intended (feel free to look it up).
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 08:54 PM   #75
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,944
California bans Donald Trump

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Your idealism is precious. This man has been busted for tax fraud schemes, caught dipping into his own charity for personal expenses which means he was declaring non-profit charity illegally.
Busted for tax fraud? I don’t recall him being arrested for this crime. I am not so clear on the charity stuff -however, we didn’t need his tax returns to learn about these issues so again, I don’t see the value of the return itself.


Quote:
Who said anything about personal loans? Those would be business loans and you most certainly can write the interest off as an expense against gross profit.
Exactly my point. That would be on the return of the business entity that took out the loan.

Quote:
And unless he lists himself as an employee of his corporations and records a salary received, chances are good there is a lot of income coming in from self employment. For example, his 'brand' selling. He is certainly writing off expenses for that business.
But it’s much more likely that he has a business entity through which he does this.

Quote:
Where have you been in the last decade? Who outed the fake letter Dan Rather thought was real about Bush getting out of military service? The people on the net I'm referring to dig up obscure evidence, they don't just spout opinions.
They don’t have access to the kind of info you are talking about. They can’t get at his bank statements, business records, etc. if they could we’d already have them.

Quote:
Blew that one, didn't ya.
Not really. You simply overestimate the kind of information available in a personal tax return.

Quote:


The election didn't prove **** except Trump was lying when he said he'd release those returns.

It's so bloody obvious how Trump TV works. He makes a promise, people vote believing that promise. Then he breaks the promise and claims people voted for him and they didn't care about his promise/tax returns.

Seems to have sold you that last line in the scheme.
Not me. I figured he would never release the returns. What the election proved is that the unavailability of his tax returns did not dissuade people from voting for him. Your speculation about “people vote believing that promise,” is unfounded.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 09:57 PM   #76
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,384
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
<snip>
Not me. I figured he would never release the returns. What the election proved is that the unavailability of his tax returns did not dissuade people from voting for him. Your speculation about “people vote believing that promise,” is unfounded.
That's a pretty wild assumption on your part. People who might have been leaning towards him and might have been effected if they knew he was flat out lying about submitting his tax returns? How many of those "leaners" really sat at home in early November and said, "Well, I don't care if he never shows us his tax returns..." And how many said "Well, he's got a reason to not show his tax returns and as soon as he's finished with that audit he'll present them like he says".

Had they known.... a couple of voters here and there and it could have effected the election which swung on about 150,000 key votes.

And had he been up front and argued the constitution razmatazz, even more people would have not voted for him. It's pretty obvious now that he'll do anything in his power to not show those numbers. Instead of primping and blustering had he said "I'm above that. I'm a ******** billionaire and you have no right to see my taxes!" what would the reaction have been. A few hard core wouldn't have been budged but a lot of people would have.

All of the above is IMHO. I believe, however, that it's more logical than your assumption that it didn't matter no matter what the outcome was to turn out to be.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 10:55 PM   #77
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,438
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Busted for tax fraud? I don’t recall him being arrested for this crime. I am not so clear on the charity stuff -however, we didn’t need his tax returns to learn about these issues so again, I don’t see the value of the return itself.
You really should do a little homework before charging ahead. Arrest and time in jail does not follow all tax crimes. Fines and paying the tax are frequent consequences.

Here's a hint to get you started: Look up Trump mailing empty boxes of jewelry.


Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Exactly my point. That would be on the return of the business entity that took out the loan.

But it’s much more likely that he has a business entity through which he does this.

They don’t have access to the kind of info you are talking about. They can’t get at his bank statements, business records, etc. if they could we’d already have them.

Not really. You simply overestimate the kind of information available in a personal tax return.
And you are speculating. In my favor: Trump is hiding something.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Not me. I figured he would never release the returns. What the election proved is that the unavailability of his tax returns did not dissuade people from voting for him. Your speculation about “people vote believing that promise,” is unfounded.
Whatever.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 11:05 PM   #78
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 481
A tax return will tell you how good his accountant is. So, what's that gonna do? I'm gonna hire that candidate's accountant next year so I get a better refund?

I wanna see MEDICAL records - that will tell me whether or not the candidate is mentally or medically impaired (Hilary and her falling spells).
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 11:06 PM   #79
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,646
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You really should do a little homework before charging ahead. Arrest and time in jail does not follow all tax crimes. Fines and paying the tax are frequent consequences.

Here's a hint to get you started: Look up Trump mailing empty boxes of jewelry.


And you are speculating. In my favor: Trump is hiding something.

Whatever.
I have no objection to him trying to hide something. I hide tons of things.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 11:10 PM   #80
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,001
There is no question that the prospect of expecting to publish your tax returns has lead to future contenders for the nomination to be much more careful in how they do business.
And it has kept some people from declaring in the first place.

Trump, who hasn't been preparing properly to become President, ever, has undoubtedly stuff that would look disqualifying compared to more prescient candidates - even assuming that there is no actual fraud.

So Trump's only legitimate defense is: "look, I didn't want to become President" (a lie, of course), "but I had to, given the state of the nation. Because of this, my taxes look like those of a shrewd businessman, not like an ass-covering politician. Think about that before you read them - here they are."

Given how little attention his base paid to the Mueller report, this should be a no-risk move for Trump - IF the tax returns don't actually open the floodgates to a host of avenues for investigation of fraud.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.