Republicans beg Democrat to drop quest for Trump tax returns

[Rams]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/02/07/republicans-beg-democrat-to-drop-quest-for-trump-tax-returns/23664294/

WASHINGTON — Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee asked the new Democratic chairman to drop the quest to obtain President Donald Trump's tax returns from the Treasury Department.

In a letter to Massachusetts Rep. Richard Neal, who is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, on Thursday, Republican Reps. Kevin Brady and Mike Kelly pleaded with the chairman to not pursue Trump's tax returns, citing privacy concerns and what they characterized as an abuse of authority.

If we're going to go down this path, I most surely want PRESIDENTS Obama's and Clinton's taxes investigated.   This would (no doubt in my mind) lead to every candidate considering a run for the office to be required to submit their tax data for life.    Can't be too careful ya know.    Having gone that far, let's look at every elected official at the federal level and let's not forget SCOTUS.    

Apparently, some don't believe the IRS is doing it's job.  Or, could this be for political reasons?  Surely not.

I really wonder if Left leaders (those pushing for this) realize the Pandora's Box they are trying to open.  Doesn't matter to me but, what's good for the Goose is definately good for the Gander.    Can't wait to see how Speaker Pelosi got rich.....  

Edited: A personal request from me, if you're going to vote, please post as to why you voted the way you did.   It's still free country so (currently) you don't have to but, your reasoning may be enlightening to myself and others.  Thank you for participating.  
   

Rams  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Aren't Obama's and Clinton's tax returns already made public ?

[Rams]

Aren't Obama's and Clinton's tax returns already made public ?

What I know versus what I believe are not compatible.   I feel quite certain an in depth investigation (such as is proposed for President Trump) would provide some very interesting information.

But, Obama and Clinton are past tense.   My biggest point is that what goes around, comes around.   If, the Dems wish to go down the path of second guessing the IRS for this President, be prepared for the same thing when another is in the Oval Office.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if every federally elected official's income was investigated but, such a law/regulation would probably mean no one would run for office.    As I said, what's good for the goose is, good for the gander.

Rams

[The emperor has no clothes]

Aren't Obama's and Clinton's tax returns already made public ?

What I know versus what I believe are not compatible.   I feel quite certain an in depth investigation (such as is proposed for President Trump) would provide some very interesting information.

But, Obama and Clinton are past tense.   My biggest point is that what goes around, comes around.   If, the Dems wish to go down the path of second guessing the IRS for this President, be prepared for the same thing when another is in the Oval Office.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if every federally elected official's income was investigated but, such a law/regulation would probably mean no one would run for office.    As I said, what's good for the goose is, good for the gander.

Rams

I'm not opposed to candidates for president tax returns becoming public. It appears some are worried. If by making them public, people who have something to hide shy away from running, that's probably a good thing. (I will pass on the vote at this time)

[hubcapsc]

I think people should get in trouble with the IRS if they cheat on their taxes.

I think people who can benefit from it would be dopes if they
didn't work as hard as they could to pay the lowest taxes possible under the law.

I think if the laws are bad, they should be changed.

I think the dog-catcher and the president and whoever else should try to get their tax data
printed up in the newspaper if they want to, nobody should be able to make them, especially
not those dour hateful looking people we saw in the audience at the SOTU...

-Mike

[baldo]

I'm confused about this poll. They're pushing this because he has refused to provide his tax returns, as every President for the last 40 yrs or so has done. He's come up with one excuse after another as to why they aren't available. He's also got the most 'entanglements' financially, than any other President.

If he's as clean as he claims to be, he should release them. Or does he have something to hide?

To answer your question Ron, it should be for every President, but ESPECIALLY for him.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm confused about this poll. They're pushing this because he has refused to provide his tax returns, as every President for the last 40 yrs or so has done. He's come up with one excuse after another as to why they aren't available. He's also got the most 'entanglements' financially, than any other President.

If he's as clean as he claims to be, he should release them. Or does he have something to hide?

To answer your question Ron, it should be for every President, but ESPECIALLY for him.

I was confused by the poll because the question was "Do you support this ?" Support them begging ?

[baldo]

I'm confused about this poll. They're pushing this because he has refused to provide his tax returns, as every President for the last 40 yrs or so has done. He's come up with one excuse after another as to why they aren't available. He's also got the most 'entanglements' financially, than any other President.

If he's as clean as he claims to be, he should release them. Or does he have something to hide?

To answer your question Ron, it should be for every President, but ESPECIALLY for him.

I was confused by the poll because the question was "Do you support this ?" Support them begging ?

Correct....they're going through this process because he refuses to release them.

There's LOTS of smoke here, I'm betting there's more than a little fire.

[Oss]

What was required is to complete certain forms and disclosures not the actual returns in my recollection. See the campaign finance act

The problem lies with a person with multiple businesses etc as opposed to someone who has NEVER run a business, let alone multiple businesses.  Who in that position can truly swear to every item nor every dollar? really?

Income from certain sources, (speaking engagements like Clinton where 1M may come in for 1 hr raise their own red flags)

Once submitted I could not care, a mis-step on Obama's return or campaign finance submission would not sent me into a state of ravenous depravity. The problem is the "gotya" mentality and the ownership of the "free press" by those who want us neither free nor able to think independently  (Bezos- washington post v the other pricks National Enquirer and Murdock's empire)

These are the new puppetmasters like Soros intent on dividing america and stirring unrest amongst are drug addled youth

[Rams]

I'm confused about this poll. They're pushing this because he has refused to provide his tax returns, as every President for the last 40 yrs or so has done. He's come up with one excuse after another as to why they aren't available. He's also got the most 'entanglements' financially, than any other President.

If he's as clean as he claims to be, he should release them. Or does he have something to hide?

To answer your question Ron, it should be for every President, but ESPECIALLY for him.

Every President (you mention) has provided the returns by choice, not by a requirement of Congress or the electorate.   Those that elected President Trump seem to be satisfied with his responses.   Obviously, those that voted for the losing candidate are not.    It could be that those who voted for Candidate Trump simply chose for the lessor of the evils.    Personally, I have no problem with "every" Oval Office candidate being required to submit their returns by election rules.    I'd also like to see every federally elected office holder held to the same standard.

I'm confused about this poll. They're pushing this because he has refused to provide his tax returns, as every President for the last 40 yrs or so has done. He's come up with one excuse after another as to why they aren't available. He's also got the most 'entanglements' financially, than any other President.

If he's as clean as he claims to be, he should release them. Or does he have something to hide?

To answer your question Ron, it should be for every President, but ESPECIALLY for him.

I was confused by the poll because the question was "Do you support this ?" Support them begging ?

I believe that to the average reader, the question is obvious but those with questioning minds may be smarter than me.  So, with that, the question is, do you support the investigation or any of the optional choices.

Rams

[The emperor has no clothes]

I believe that to the average reader, the question is obvious but those with questioning minds may be smarter than me.  So, with that, the question is, do you support the investigation or any of the optional choices.

Rams

I got it (even though I’m below average)

I support Republicans begging. 

[Serk]

Taxation is theft.

How much a person earns is their business, and should remain their business.

Even if one accepts taxation as something other than theft, that information should STILL be only between the individual and the minimum number of personnel at the IRS required to verify the authenticity of it.

If someone wishes to divulge that information of their own free will that's also their business.

Pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding they tell everyone how much they earn or else is the kind of tactic that should be relegated to history books, not current events.


---Edit to add

Maybe I'm just old fashioned or my parents raised me differently, but I was taught from an early age it's the height of rudeness to ask someone how much money they make.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Taxation is theft.

How much a person earns is their business, and should remain their business.

Even if one accepts taxation as something other than theft, that information should STILL be only between the individual and the minimum number of personnel at the IRS required to verify the authenticity of it.

If someone wishes to divulge that information of their own free will that's also their business.

Pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding they tell everyone how much they earn or else is the kind of tactic that should be relegated to history books, not current events.


---Edit to add

Maybe I'm just old fashioned or my parents raised me differently, but I was taught from an early age it's the height of rudeness to ask someone how much money they make.

I’m pretty sure you believe in the Constitution.

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


I’m pretty sure you also know that Congress has a constitutional requirement of oversight.

[Pete]

I'm confused about this poll. They're pushing this because he has refused to provide his tax returns, as every President for the last 40 yrs or so has done. He's come up with one excuse after another as to why they aren't available. He's also got the most 'entanglements' financially, than any other President.

If he's as clean as he claims to be, he should release them. Or does he have something to hide?

To answer your question Ron, it should be for every President, but ESPECIALLY for him.

Very enlightening! Especially the last sentence. Your implication is offensive to the basic freedoms of this country.

If the tax return is correct and legally done it should not be revealed by anyone to anyone. If it is not then legal prosecution is in order, if it is factually incorrect then the entity must be given the opportunity to correct it , if not corrected then prosecution is in order.

[..]

Taxation is theft.

How much a person earns is their business, and should remain their business.

Even if one accepts taxation as something other than theft, that information should STILL be only between the individual and the minimum number of personnel at the IRS required to verify the authenticity of it.

If someone wishes to divulge that information of their own free will that's also their business.

Pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding they tell everyone how much they earn or else is the kind of tactic that should be relegated to history books, not current events.


---Edit to add

Maybe I'm just old fashioned or my parents raised me differently, but I was taught from an early age it's the height of rudeness to ask someone how much money they make.

I’m pretty sure you believe in the Constitution.

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


I’m pretty sure you also know that Congress has a constitutional requirement of oversight.

Yet Hillary is untouchable.
(and a few emojis for this who like them so) 
Thanks for the laugh

[michaelyoung254]

Taxation is theft.

How much a person earns is their business, and should remain their business.

Even if one accepts taxation as something other than theft, that information should STILL be only between the individual and the minimum number of personnel at the IRS required to verify the authenticity of it.

If someone wishes to divulge that information of their own free will that's also their business.

Pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding they tell everyone how much they earn or else is the kind of tactic that should be relegated to history books, not current events.


---Edit to add

Maybe I'm just old fashioned or my parents raised me differently, but I was taught from an early age it's the height of rudeness to ask someone how much money they make.

I’m pretty sure you believe in the Constitution.

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


I’m pretty sure you also know that Congress has a constitutional requirement of oversight.

That may be true, but in this case, they are demanding the tax information from President Trump PRIOR to his becoming POTUS.

I would also like to ask those same officials that are demanding that President Trump open up all of his tax documents:

"Why are you demanding that President Trump provide ALL of his tax documents when you were perfectly okay with the fact that President Obama sealed virtually everything from the time he born?"

[Pete]

Taxation is theft.

How much a person earns is their business, and should remain their business.

Even if one accepts taxation as something other than theft, that information should STILL be only between the individual and the minimum number of personnel at the IRS required to verify the authenticity of it.

If someone wishes to divulge that information of their own free will that's also their business.

Pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding they tell everyone how much they earn or else is the kind of tactic that should be relegated to history books, not current events.


---Edit to add

Maybe I'm just old fashioned or my parents raised me differently, but I was taught from an early age it's the height of rudeness to ask someone how much money they make.

I’m pretty sure you believe in the Constitution.

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


I’m pretty sure you also know that Congress has a constitutional requirement of oversight.

Warning, be aware that  liberal deflection is in process and factual information distortion is necessary.

[Serk]

Edited: A personal request from me, if you're going to vote, please post as to why you voted the way you did.   It's still free country so (currently) you don't have to but, your reasoning may be enlightening to myself and others.  Thank you for participating.  

My reply was in response to this, I have said my piece.

[Rams]

That may be true, but in this case, they are demanding the tax information from President Trump PRIOR to his becoming POTUS.

I would also like to ask those same officials that are demanding that President Trump open up all of his tax documents:

"Why are you demanding that President Trump provide ALL of his tax documents when you were perfectly okay with the fact that President Obama sealed virtually everything from the time he born?"

Case in point.

Not everyone sees both sides of a coin.   One must actually turn it over and it appears some are only willing to see the side that fits their agenda.     I personally don't care either way but, if President Trump's returns are investigated by anyone other than the IRS, then all federally elected officials should have their tax records looked at in the same way and made just as public.

I'd bet good money Speaker Pelosi doesn't want her and her husband's returns looked at or, how he got all those government contracts.  

Rams

[MarkT]

I said I don't support this in the poll.  If tax returns are demanded from the president then the same should be required of ALL the elected members of congress, and presidential appointees.  Bet there's illegality or at least shady dealing in nearly all of them.  SICK of the hypocrisy and crookedness of the liberals in particular.  I'm thinking of the Clintons and Obama and Holder as I write this - and I'm sure there are MANY more felonies by others we don't know of.  Yet.

[Robert]

Trump is unusual in that he has many business ventures and to interpret the tax information with the depth and amount transactions would be difficult if not impossible. Much less understanding and iterpreting them by most people would be nearly impossible also.

  Now some of the past presidents that came into office with nothing and sealed much in the way of records it would be an easy process. But either way I do not support this kind of thing being a US citizen is enough or maybe not.

Not to mention if we cannot prosecute Hillary or Comey,Brennen,Strok,Page,Obama,or a whole host of others what good would it do even if a return were made public.

[¿spoom]

Aren't Obama's and Clinton's tax returns already made public ?

What I know versus what I believe are not compatible.   I feel quite certain an in depth investigation (such as is proposed for President Trump) would provide some very interesting information.

But, Obama and Clinton are past tense.   My biggest point is that what goes around, comes around.   If, the Dems wish to go down the path of second guessing the IRS for this President, be prepared for the same thing when another is in the Oval Office.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if every federally elected official's income was investigated but, such a law/regulation would probably mean no one would run for office.    As I said, what's good for the goose is, good for the gander.

Rams

I keep years of business and personal tax records in blue Rubbermaid containers because with the IRS, I'M not past tense  ???

[The emperor has no clothes]

Edited: A personal request from me, if you're going to vote, please post as to why you voted the way you did.   It's still free country so (currently) you don't have to but, your reasoning may be enlightening to myself and others.  Thank you for participating.  

My reply was in response to this, I have said my piece.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Taxation is theft.

How much a person earns is their business, and should remain their business.

Even if one accepts taxation as something other than theft, that information should STILL be only between the individual and the minimum number of personnel at the IRS required to verify the authenticity of it.

If someone wishes to divulge that information of their own free will that's also their business.

Pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding they tell everyone how much they earn or else is the kind of tactic that should be relegated to history books, not current events.


---Edit to add

Maybe I'm just old fashioned or my parents raised me differently, but I was taught from an early age it's the height of rudeness to ask someone how much money they make.

I’m pretty sure you believe in the Constitution.

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


I’m pretty sure you also know that Congress has a constitutional requirement of oversight.

That may be true, but in this case, they are demanding the tax information from President Trump PRIOR to his becoming POTUS.

I would also like to ask those same officials that are demanding that President Trump open up all of his tax documents:

"Why are you demanding that President Trump provide ALL of his tax documents when you were perfectly okay with the fact that President Obama sealed virtually everything from the time he born?"

Wouldn’t you need to see prior tax returns to know who he might be indebted to ?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Taxation is theft.

How much a person earns is their business, and should remain their business.

Even if one accepts taxation as something other than theft, that information should STILL be only between the individual and the minimum number of personnel at the IRS required to verify the authenticity of it.

If someone wishes to divulge that information of their own free will that's also their business.

Pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding they tell everyone how much they earn or else is the kind of tactic that should be relegated to history books, not current events.


---Edit to add

Maybe I'm just old fashioned or my parents raised me differently, but I was taught from an early age it's the height of rudeness to ask someone how much money they make.

I’m pretty sure you believe in the Constitution.

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


I’m pretty sure you also know that Congress has a constitutional requirement of oversight.

Warning, be aware that  liberal deflection is in process and factual information distortion is necessary.

Do you not believe the emoluments clause is relevant here ?

[Rams]

Wouldn’t you need to see prior tax returns to know who he might be indebted to ?

Trump, Obama, the Clintons, Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell?

How bout all or none?

Rams

[Jess from VA]

Yes it is relevant.

But it is a prohibition (like criminal law), not a license for warrantless searches of (or fishing expeditions against) federal officeholders.

Bring evidence of probable cause that a violation of emoluments clause has occurred sufficient for search before the appropriate magistrate, and see if you can get a warrant.

The clause does not say federal officeholders forfeit their constitutional rights. 

[Willow]

I’m pretty sure you believe in the Constitution.

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


I’m pretty sure you also know that Congress has a constitutional requirement of oversight.

Warning, be aware that  liberal deflection is in process and factual information distortion is necessary.

Do you not believe the emoluments clause is relevant here ?

Michael Young explained it to you but apparently you didn't get it.  I'll detail the explanation. If the demands are for his tax returns for the past two years only (2017,2018) then that clause apples although it ls a stretch to believe that a tax return would expose a gift from a foreign government.  If they are searching for tax returns before he was a federal officeholder then, no, the clause doesn't apply.

Jess, I'm surprised at your quick response that it is relevant.  You may want to go back and read up.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I’m pretty sure you believe in the Constitution.

The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph that generally prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. The clause provides that:No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


I’m pretty sure you also know that Congress has a constitutional requirement of oversight.

Warning, be aware that  liberal deflection is in process and factual information distortion is necessary.

Do you not believe the emoluments clause is relevant here ?

Michael Young explained it to you but apparently you didn't get it.  I'll detail the explanation. If the demands are for his tax returns for the past two years only (2017,2018) then that clause apples although it ls a stretch to believe that a tax return would expose a gift from a foreign government.  If they are searching for tax returns before he was a federal officeholder then, no, the clause doesn't apply.

Jess, I'm surprised at your quick response that it is relevant.  You may want to go back and read up.

You are right. I didn’t get it. The prior taxes have little to do with the emoluments clause. They have to with possible quid pro quo for relaxing the Russian sanctions, pulling out of Syria, and a multitude of other entanglements. It’s hard to keep them all compartmentalised at times. The emoluments clause has to do with his current profit taking from foreign governments.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Yes it is relevant.

But it is a prohibition (like criminal law), not a license for warrantless searches of (or fishing expeditions against) federal officeholders.

Bring evidence of probable cause that a violation of emoluments clause has occurred sufficient for search before the appropriate magistrate, and see if you can get a warrant.

The clause does not say federal officeholders forfeit their constitutional rights. 

Evidently there is a statute on record pulling his tax return.

“The statute in question — Section 6103 of the federal tax code — gives the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee extraordinary powers to request that the Treasury Department release to him tax information on any filer, including the president. The provision allows the committee to review the tax information privately, but it would have to vote to disclose any return information or findings to the public.”

Washington Post is the source.

[Robert]

There has to be a reason to get the returns, at this point there is no reason including

Senate Intelligence chairman: No evidence of Trump-Russia collusion

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said Thursday that his committee's Russia investigation has yet to find evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin but will soon release a report on the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the last presidential election.

Instead of pushing a topic some are desirous of seeing happen with no knowledge of and without knowing legal precedence maybe it would be a great idea to do some research first.

[Willow]

In the cases of both President Obama and President Trump I see hatred, intense hatred, clouding people's ability to apply logic.  It is very important as we read spoutungs by these folks that we keep in mind that not everything espoused by an individual who opposes out own view is representative of the thinking of everyone who opposes our viewpoints.

I voted against publicizing anyone's prior tax reports.  Most of us are not capable of understanding the importance of items within someone else's tax report.  Perhaps more importantly, a large portion of the public will react in resentment as seeing even legal deductions that a political person took that the individual was not entitled to take.  Exposing the tax returns of elected officials is an underhanded way of making political ground.

Opposition is democratic and can be good.  Hatred, intense hatred, in either direction is not good.

[baldo]

Like MH said. The purpose of Presidential candidates to provide their tax returns is to ensure that there is nothing shady in their past that would be a problem if elected. It has less than nothing to do with their returns once elected.

If they're looking for 2017, 2018, in this case, it's because he refused to divest himself from his business interests as is required (?). Hence the emolument issue.

He chose to play cute by putting his sons in charge of his business interests. If he had simply done what all others have done, this wouldn't be an issue.

I don't know for sure how far back past Presidents have gone with their returns, but I'm sure I could find it if necessary.

[Chrisj CMA]

The dirty cooked Democrats have proved by their behavior that they do what they do out of hatred for Donald Trump. Since no high moral standard (quite the opposite) drives their investigations and threats, if I was in Trump’s shoes I would do the bare minimum the law demands not a bit over. Let the dems heads explode. Then after the republicans take the house back in Trump’s second term let there be “hell” to pay

[The emperor has no clothes]

In the cases of both President Obama and President Trump I see hatred, intense hatred, clouding people's ability to apply logic.  It is very important as we read spoutungs by these folks that we keep in mind that not everything espoused by an individual who opposes out own view is representative of the thinking of everyone who opposes our viewpoints.

I voted against publicizing anyone's prior tax reports.  Most of us are not capable of understanding the importance of items within someone else's tax report.  Perhaps more importantly, a large portion of the public will react in resentment as seeing even legal deductions that a political person took that the individual was not entitled to take.  Exposing the tax returns of elected officials is an underhanded way of making political ground.

Opposition is democratic and can be good.  Hatred, intense hatred, in either direction is not good.

I think you don’t give people enough credit. I think most people would completely understand the importance of a tax return showing business dealings with Russians, Saudis. Likewise I think most people would understand the importance of reforming the tax laws if they were to see billionaires paying little to no taxes. To sum up, I think the people of this great country are wise beyond the credit you give them. There is a quote by somebody that goes something like “Sunshine is the best disinfectant”

[Rams]

In the cases of both President Obama and President Trump I see hatred, intense hatred, clouding people's ability to apply logic.  It is very important as we read spoutungs by these folks that we keep in mind that not everything espoused by an individual who opposes out own view is representative of the thinking of everyone who opposes our viewpoints.

I voted against publicizing anyone's prior tax reports.  Most of us are not capable of understanding the importance of items within someone else's tax report.  Perhaps more importantly, a large portion of the public will react in resentment as seeing even legal deductions that a political person took that the individual was not entitled to take.  Exposing the tax returns of elected officials is an underhanded way of making political ground.

Opposition is democratic and can be good.  Hatred, intense hatred, in either direction is not good.

I think you don’t give people enough credit. I think most people would completely understand the importance of a tax return showing business dealings with Russians, Saudis. Likewise I think most people would understand the importance of reforming the tax laws if they were to see billionaires paying little to no taxes. To sum up, I think the people of this great country are wise beyond the credit you give them. There is a quote by somebody that goes something like “Sunshine is the best disinfectant”

I assume you mean the same folks that are distracted by the next thing a bias'd media presents?
As I have said many times, I am not a fan of Donald Trump but he beats the hell out of his competition.   
Had the Dems offered up a credible candidate, the election results may have been different.

In that I started this thread, I don't mind hijacking it a bit.  My greatest hope is not that President Trump be re-elected but that RBG leaves SCOTUS before President Trump is out of office.   

Rams

[The emperor has no clothes]

Ron, the previous election has been debated here innumerable times. We are past that. It’s about whether Trump or his campaign conspired with the Russians. It’s about if Trump is violating the emoluments clause. It’s about whether Trump has hurt the American people by helping the Russians. Whether you felt Trump was the better choice than Clinton is ilrelevant at this point. She is gone, never to return.

[Willow]

In the cases of both President Obama and President Trump I see hatred, intense hatred, clouding people's ability to apply logic.  It is very important as we read spoutungs by these folks that we keep in mind that not everything espoused by an individual who opposes out own view is representative of the thinking of everyone who opposes our viewpoints.

I voted against publicizing anyone's prior tax reports.  Most of us are not capable of understanding the importance of items within someone else's tax report.  Perhaps more importantly, a large portion of the public will react in resentment as seeing even legal deductions that a political person took that the individual was not entitled to take.  Exposing the tax returns of elected officials is an underhanded way of making political ground.

Opposition is democratic and can be good.  Hatred, intense hatred, in either direction is not good.

I think you don’t give people enough credit. I think most people would completely understand the importance of a tax return showing business dealings with Russians, Saudis. Likewise I think most people would understand the importance of reforming the tax laws if they were to see billionaires paying little to no taxes. To sum up, I think the people of this great country are wise beyond the credit you give them. There is a quote by somebody that goes something like “Sunshine is the best disinfectant”

I believe you have adequately demonstrated the correctness of my position.

[The emperor has no clothes]

In the cases of both President Obama and President Trump I see hatred, intense hatred, clouding people's ability to apply logic.  It is very important as we read spoutungs by these folks that we keep in mind that not everything espoused by an individual who opposes out own view is representative of the thinking of everyone who opposes our viewpoints.

I voted against publicizing anyone's prior tax reports.  Most of us are not capable of understanding the importance of items within someone else's tax report.  Perhaps more importantly, a large portion of the public will react in resentment as seeing even legal deductions that a political person took that the individual was not entitled to take.  Exposing the tax returns of elected officials is an underhanded way of making political ground.

Opposition is democratic and can be good.  Hatred, intense hatred, in either direction is not good.

I think you don’t give people enough credit. I think most people would completely understand the importance of a tax return showing business dealings with Russians, Saudis. Likewise I think most people would understand the importance of reforming the tax laws if they were to see billionaires paying little to no taxes. To sum up, I think the people of this great country are wise beyond the credit you give them. There is a quote by somebody that goes something like “Sunshine is the best disinfectant”

I believe you have adequately demonstrated the correctness of my position.

[Rams]

Ron, the previous election has been debated here innumerable times. We are past that. It’s about whether Trump or his campaign conspired with the Russians. It’s about if Trump is violating the emoluments clause. It’s about whether Trump has hurt the American people by helping the Russians. Whether you felt Trump was the better choice than Clinton is ilrelevant at this point. She is gone, never to return.

Those who choose to not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Remember those folks who are easily distracted.   
Remember the Alamo, never forget the Clintons, their Foundation and the scams they pulled.

Rams