• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

OLC determines that Trump's tax returns DO NOT have to be disclosed

poweRob said:
Then there is nothing to worry about smearing if it is so boring right? Or are you going to continue to try and have it both ways on this? Rhetorical question of course.
Click to expand...

I think reading someone else tax returns would be a very boring read.

Are really arguing that if you got to read Trump's tax returns it would be an interesting read?

The only thing that could make reading Trump's tax returns not boring would be finding the gold you were looking for... the gold being the smear.

My guess is, If, you read Trump's tax return and found no smear, the only reason you would reread that boring document again, would be to check and see if you missed the smear.

Now for Congress, they won't be reading Trump's boring tax returns. They have staff to do those kind of boring jobs..... read and reread looking for the smear.

I think, you are the one that wants to have it both ways.

Roseann:)
 
ecofarm said:
It's just another lie from Trump. "I will..."

He said he would. He lied. And his supporters don't care.
Click to expand...

You’re right, we truly don’t, and never did. This is purely a juvenile obsession of the left
 
CharisRose said:
I think reading someone else tax returns would be a very boring read.
Click to expand...

Well it's not sci-fi. It's there to inform you not to entertain you.

CharisRose said:
Are really arguing that if you got to read Trump's tax returns it would be an interesting read?
Click to expand...

No. That's just you strawmanning to distract from the fact that you don't seem to know the definition of "lie".

CharisRose said:
The only thing that could make reading Trump's tax returns not boring would be finding the gold you were looking for... the gold being the smear.
Click to expand...

What gold? You think it's super clean so no biggie right? If there is no gold, there is no smear by your very own logic.

CharisRose said:
My guess is, If, you read Trump's tax return and found no smear, the only reason you would reread that boring document again, would be to check and see if you missed the smear.
Click to expand...

Again, if there is no gold then there is no smear. That is what you said.

CharisRose said:
Now for Congress, they won't be reading Trump's boring tax returns. They have staff to do those kind of boring jobs..... read and reread looking for the smear.

I think, you are the one that wants to have it both ways.

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

Meanwhile you say there is no gold therefore there is no smear. Then play the trump victim card that if read it might smear him. :lol:
 
vegas giants said:
Virtue signaling is code for I want to lie and not be held accountable
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read the link I provided?

If, you had you would know the sentence you wrote is half correct and half incorrect.

When you took the code off of you and placed it on your target you incorrectly placed the lie and not to be held accountable off of you and unto your target.

Are You Guilty of 'Virtue-Signaling?' | Intellectual Takeout

snippets

British author James Bartholomew has secured his place in history. Recently, he invented the perfect phrase for our times: “virtue signaling.”

My NOTE: There is even a video to watch of the author James Bartholomew speaking for himself what his term virtue signaling actually means.

another written snippet from article

It’s noticeable how often virtue signalling consists of saying you hate things. It is camouflage. The emphasis on hate distracts from the fact you are really saying how good you are. If you were frank and said, ‘I care about the environment more than most people do’ or ‘I care about the poor more than others’, your vanity and self-aggrandizement would be obvious. . . . Anger and outrage disguise your boastfulness.

Roseann:)
 
vegas giants said:
You can not trust a single thing he says.


He is a liar
Click to expand...

Then don't trust him.

When are you going to realize that you don't get to tell me what to do, how to think, etc. no matter how many time you repeat yourself.

You may think you are superior to me but you don't get to make that call. I do.

Roseann:)
 
CanadaJohn said:
With respect, if Trump was involved in any criminal activity, it is highly unlikely that his tax returns will reveal such criminal activity, so "if his success is by hook or crook and in some mafioso type way" is just nonsense. There is nothing in Trump's tax returns that opposition research and/or research by journalists hasn't already uncovered/disclosed.

This is simply an exercise in partisan fishing. From tax returns recently, the only thing that was considered "news" was how cheap Joe Biden was as it related to his charitable donations. And that had zero relevance to his suitability or ability to serve as Vice President and President, if necessary.

Political parties like to push this narrative because they think jealousy may work for them and some petty issue like charitable donations can damage a candidate. One narrative of the Democrats has been that Trump has benefitted from business failures by not having to pay income taxes in some years. Democrats are blaming Trump for following American tax law and criticizing him for not being an idiot by not taking advantage of those tax laws.
Click to expand...

Still, the question that no one seems to address is "why not?" release the tax returns. Is there something to hide?
 
ecofarm said:
It's just another lie from Trump. "I will..."

He said he would. He lied. And his supporters don't care.
Click to expand...

No, no, no, he's going to release them as soon as the audit is over.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Meh. It's an opinion that runs counter to the law.

The law doesn't require that Neal give any reason.

Upholding the law isn't something conservatives have ever really been interested in.
Click to expand...

Bend me shape me anyway you want, we got the power to obstruct the law. Unsaid republican congress folks motto. They really should be called the party of law breakers not law and order.
 
Imagine being a conservative and having to defend Donald Trump.

Ike is probably spinning in his grave right now.
 
poweRob said:
It's like you are intentionally trying not to understand words. Lol

It doesnt matter if you didnt want or expect him to release his taxes. Its a lie to you and everyone else when he said he would then didn't.
Click to expand...

I understand every word you are saying.

You are virtue signaling.

Are You Guilty of 'Virtue-Signaling?' | Intellectual Takeout

snippet from article

It’s noticeable how often virtue signalling consists of saying you hate things. It is camouflage. The emphasis on hate distracts from the fact you are really saying how good you are. If you were frank and said, ‘I care about the environment more than most people do’ or ‘I care about the poor more than others’, your vanity and self-aggrandizement would be obvious. . . . Anger and outrage disguise your boastfulness.

And, I am merely not letting you get away with it.

Shaming doesn't work on me to make me feel bad about myself in comparison to your make believe superior virtue that you are touting.

Keep it up to your hearts content but I must warn you it will never work on me.

Unless, you are doing this to make yourself look good in fellow virtue signal users eyes.

Then I will expect to see endless repeated post from you saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over etc. again until your fingers cramp from overuse;).

Roseann:)
 
Condor060 said:
Lets back up just for a second. The question posed to me in the list was



If you want to take that statement to an extreme and start paring off leadership to leadership comparisons, of course their isn't a comparison but as usual, Democrats love to take Trump quotes out of context to make another extreme point.

The actual quote made by Trump was
"The truth is that the centrist Democratic party is dead. The new Democrats are radical socialists who want to model America’s economy after Venezuela."

Democrats denounce 'deceitful' Trump claims of Venezuela-style socialism | US news | The Guardian

Now you may not agree with that statement but it is completely different than what you provided. I have seen it before and responded to it before and if you are going to post such you are going to get answers that follow suit.

I never made a comparison about Sanders and Maduro. This is an exaggeration of what I actually said. I said Sanders wants to mandate for government control of healthcare, education, and guaranteed incomes which is Socialism. And as Sanders admits, these other countries collect the cost of these programs through much higher tax programs.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, you mentioned Venezuela in your post regarding Sanders. If you did not agree with Trump you would not have stated it. It is evident that you consider Sanders a person that will take us into the kind of situation now found in Venezuela and that is just not the case. Why don't you argue as to how perhaps Sanders will take us in the direction of Sweden, Norway, Australia and New Zealand. Those are countries that have what is called "Benevolent Capitalism" and that is mostly what Sanders is advocating. It doesn't suit your narrative and therefore you mention the bad and not the good about that kind of thinking. After all, I personally would change to what is offered in those countries in a second. The happiness quotient in those countries is far higher than here and it is without a doubt a better rated life style.

Sanders is an adherent to Democratic Socialism and that is NOT BAD.

After all, the voters who already identify with Sanders’ democratic socialist vision are almost certainly already aware that after all he is a professed adhent.

What’s more, Sanders already delivered a similar address in November 2015. He defined democratic socialism then in much the same way he did on Wednesday: As a completion of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which set out to house, educate and provide medical care to every American as a matter of right, but which never quite got there.

A Democratic campaign strategist, who is not now working for any presidential candidates, expressed agreement with the themes of Sanders’ speech but bafflement at the timing or function it served.

“I’m not exactly sure what the point of this speech at this moment is. It’s a speech out of nowhere,” said the strategist, who asked for anonymity for professional reasons. “And I think it’s reflective of the state of Bernie’s candidacy at this point. One of Bernie’s biggest challenges is advancing his message beyond 2016, and he seems incapable of doing that.”

The Sanders campaign insisted that the speech was not a response to a particular event or competition from any one candidate so much as a fresh opportunity to demystify democratic socialism, an ideology with which Sanders has genuinely identified for decades and would thus have to reckon with one way or another.

And unlike in 2015, when Donald Trump’s presidential election was still a distant possibility, Sanders could now frame his worldview as an antidote to the “same right-wing forces” that FDR successfully faced down.

Perhaps more important, Sanders now finds himself in a crowded field of Democratic presidential candidates, many of whom are laying claim to the progressive mantle that was his alone in the 2016 campaign.
Click to expand...

As such, when Trump and you place Sanders in a Venezuelan scenario it is an attack on the truth. Sanders is not a socialist in the bad way. He is a Democratic Socialist in the good way. Trump is doing what he always does, which is degrade people to the lowest level and you just followed him down to that same level.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Well it's not sci-fi. It's there to inform you not to entertain you.



No. That's just you strawmanning to distract from the fact that you don't seem to know the definition of "lie".



What gold? You think it's super clean so no biggie right? If there is no gold, there is no smear by your very own logic.



Again, if there is no gold then there is no smear. That is what you said.



Meanwhile you say there is no gold therefore there is no smear. Then play the trump victim card that if read it might smear him. :lol:
Click to expand...



You have a very strong desire for that information.

I never had any desire for any Candidate or Elected Officials tax reform information. It's mere "look at me" and "vote for me" political fodder that works for them.

Your an example of how well it works.

I know the definition of lie and Our Elected Officials lie all the time. You seem to want to focus on a single Elected Official and ignore all the other liars.

I never said there was no gold or that there was gold in the tax returns.

I was simply talking about the gold miners who want to read his tax returns hoping to make a claim.

I have no clue what can be found in his tax returns and neither do you or Congress.

Congress and you and others who want to see his tax returns are the gold miners, not me.

Roseann:)
 
Luckyone said:
Still, the question that no one seems to address is "why not?" release the tax returns. Is there something to hide?
Click to expand...

:twocents:

CanadaJohn's Post is spot on.

In America, The question is not.... "Is there something to hide?"

In America, The question is.... Are there any Constitutional Rights being violated for the sake of political gamesmanship?

Roseann:)
 
CharisRose said:
:twocents:

CanadaJohn's Post is spot on.

In America, The question is not.... "Is there something to hide?"

In America, The question is.... Are there any Constitutional Rights being violated for the sake of political gamesmanship?

Roseann:)
Click to expand...

Transparency should be the #1 thing with Presidents, politics be damned on all sides. After all, this is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic in which the President is a president for ALL and not just for those that voted for him.
 
Luckyone said:
Nonetheless, you mentioned Venezuela in your post regarding Sanders. If you did not agree with Trump you would not have stated it. It is evident that you consider Sanders a person that will take us into the kind of situation now found in Venezuela and that is just not the case
Click to expand...
.

Seems to me You posed the question about Democrats are "radical socialists” who want to turn America into Venezuela.

I responded in general terms being Venezuela is a socialist state and Bernie and AOC are pushing for socialist agendas. Thats all I said. Other than the fact the question was completely out of context to begin with, I answered it anyway. I don't know how you come up with all these other dissections.

Why don't you argue as to how perhaps Sanders will take us in the direction of Sweden, Norway, Australia and New Zealand.
Click to expand...

Pretty simply because you didn't use them in the question you posed. You gave me one option. Venezuela

Sanders is not a socialist in the bad way. He is a Democratic Socialist in the good way.
Click to expand...

Whatever name you want to put in front of Socialism, is still socialism. You can't be half pregnant. You can't find a single foreign state that has a beneficial history of socialism. Once you give control of a country to its government it always has the very same result.

Trump is doing what he always does, which is degrade people to the lowest level and you just followed him down to that same level.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Like Trump isn't degraded 24/7 by Liberal media for 3 solid years. Please. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

I did notice you never even committed on the other 9 questions I answered.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If I'm not mistaken, no Presidential candidate or President disclosed their tax returns prior to John F. Kennedy. Was there something inherently devious or dishonest about all who went before JFK?
Click to expand...

Nixon started the trend. 1973 He released tax returns.

Roseann:)
 
Lutherf said:
One would think that if such was the case then Neal would have said so in his request.
Click to expand...

No. He did not have to say anything at all. He does not need justification. He said as much as he wanted and it's consistent with what I said.
 
Luckyone said:
Transparency should be the #1 thing with Presidents, politics be damned on all sides. After all, this is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic in which the President is a president for ALL and not just for those that voted for him.
Click to expand...

Transparency is very important but not at the expense of Constitutional Rights being violated for the sake of political gamesmanship.

That's why our system of Government has checks and balances. Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Yes, the President is President for all even the ones who didn't vote for him.

Even the ones who chant "he's not our president" or Hold up a severed bloody mock head of the president or Put on a Julius Caesar play. With an actor using the president's imagery in the role of Caesar being stabbed or talking about blowing up the White House....etc.

Roseann:)
 
Luckyone said:
Still, the question that no one seems to address is "why not?" release the tax returns. Is there something to hide?
Click to expand...

I answered that question previously - it's the same answer most people would give to someone who refused to allow the police free and open access to search your home if they decided they'd like to do so. If you refuse the police entry to your home without a legitimate warrant to do so, what are you hiding?

A person, even a President, should not have to defend their legal right to privacy by proving a negative. You should not have to prove you have nothing to hide in order to assert your right to privacy.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I answered that question previously - it's the same answer most people would give to someone who refused to allow the police free and open access to search your home if they decided they'd like to do so. If you refuse the police entry to your home without a legitimate warrant to do so, what are you hiding?

A person, even a President, should not have to defend their legal right to privacy by proving a negative. You should not have to prove you have nothing to hide in order to assert your right to privacy.
Click to expand...

I certainly do not agree with you. Keep in mind that Trump decided to run for president himself and he should be aware of the guidelines that his predecessors have established and that the country expects of him. As such, he should follow the guidelines that he knew were there before, especially in a case where not following the guidelines will throw a negative shadow on him.

It really is that simple. All the naysayers are trying to find excuses but none are worthy of the situation.

He knew what he was getting into and if he wasn't going to follow the guidelines he should have said so before he got elected, especially when he has said he would supply his tax returns and hasn't. One more lie. How anyone can put up with so many lies and have to give so many excuses for someone is beyond my ability to reason with.
 
akyron said:
Rachel Maddow Blames Viewers for Trump Tax Return Flop

This already happened...Illegally...

Why do you think it will be different if you keep trying the same thing?

"Rachel Maddow embarrassed herself and MSNBC Tuesday night when she hyped the fact that she “got Trump tax returns,” only to reveal two pages from the president’s 2005 1040 form. Those two pages revealed President Donald Trump had made $150 million in 2005, deducted $100 million in losses, and paid $38 million in taxes.

Not the damning evidence the Left was looking for. Instead of proving, as Democrats had alleged throughout the 2016 election, that Trump hadn’t paid taxes in decades, Maddow revealed that Trump had paid taxes—and at a larger share of his income than President Barack Obama or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

So how did Maddow, whose stunt was mocked by mainstream media outlets like The Washington Post and Slate, respond to the bust? Did she apologize? Did she vow to do better?

Of course not. Because, you see, dear reader, it was not Maddow who was to blame for the episode. Nor was it the fault of her writers, producers or other staff. No: the real person to blame in all this is YOU, the viewer."

The countdown clock....rofl....suckers.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, is that really the best you could come up with? How about actually answering the question? What's stopping Trump releasing his tax returns, as he promised he would? This isn't a trick question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom