|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States24701 Posts
On April 09 2019 13:43 Introvert wrote:
As for me, the way I see it is that he was already elected without releasing them. This is obvious dumpster diving by the Democrats looking for dirt.
Worth noting is that Trump said many times during the campaign that he would release his tax returns once he was no longer under audit for them. Once he was elected, he responded to inquiries of, "are you still under audit or are you going to release your tax returns?" with "Nobody cares about that but you."
As for you, did you care about the returns before the election? Did him lying to you make you stop caring after the election?
|
On April 09 2019 19:21 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 13:43 Introvert wrote:
As for me, the way I see it is that he was already elected without releasing them. This is obvious dumpster diving by the Democrats looking for dirt. Worth noting is that Trump said many times during the campaign that he would release his tax returns once he was no longer under audit for them. Once he was elected, he responded to inquiries of, "are you still under audit or are you going to release your tax returns?" with "Nobody cares about that but you." As for you, did you care about the returns before the election? Did him lying to you make you stop caring after the election?
exactly that. double standards all around.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
The Dems should probably just drop it at this stage. There’s not going to be anything there that’s actionable and whose minds are they changing politically with this?
Everyone with half a brain knows why Trump hasn’t released his returns.
Drop the Trump angle and start pushing for the convention that Presidential candidates release their tax returns to be codified as an actual requirement.
If you don’t make headway there you sidestep some Trump’s ‘I’m the anti-establishment everyone is out to get me’ crap that people buy, and instead come up against Congressional GOP opposition (assuming you do), where normal rules more apply.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
I also agree with introvert that this is just about nailing Trump, or it is way more than it is about anything else.
It just makes the Dems look bad IMO, stepping back a bit and pushing to turn the norm into a law is a better play for me, by far, both pragmatically but also on the principle.
If you do get it done, well more transparency in politics which is a win, Trump would have to release his returns anyway without you singling him out, if you don’t get it done well you tried and who blocked it?
If you cut the Donald out of this, and I haven’t actually see. polling but surely this would have pretty majoritarian support across the aisle amongst the populace?
|
On April 09 2019 21:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
I also agree with introvert that this is just about nailing Trump, or it is way more than it is about anything else.
It just makes the Dems look bad IMO, stepping back a bit and pushing to turn the norm into a law is a better play for me, by far, both pragmatically but also on the principle.
If you do get it done, well more transparency in politics which is a win, Trump would have to release his returns anyway without you singling him out, if you don’t get it done well you tried and who blocked it?
If you cut the Donald out of this, and I haven’t actually see. polling but surely this would have pretty majoritarian support across the aisle amongst the populace?
i mean we already know it straight up won’t get to the senate floor for a vote to begin with. so it’s just a lose-lose.
it’s good to keep fresh in mind, but i certainly wouldn’t make it a hill to die on so to speak, which a few already have imo.
but regardless, it is certainly in the party’s best interest to attack the gop where it hurts, with actual policy direction.
|
On April 09 2019 21:36 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 21:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
I also agree with introvert that this is just about nailing Trump, or it is way more than it is about anything else.
It just makes the Dems look bad IMO, stepping back a bit and pushing to turn the norm into a law is a better play for me, by far, both pragmatically but also on the principle.
If you do get it done, well more transparency in politics which is a win, Trump would have to release his returns anyway without you singling him out, if you don’t get it done well you tried and who blocked it?
If you cut the Donald out of this, and I haven’t actually see. polling but surely this would have pretty majoritarian support across the aisle amongst the populace? i mean we already know it straight up won’t get to the senate floor for a vote to begin with. so it’s just a lose-lose. it’s good to keep fresh in mind, but i certainly wouldn’t make it a hill to die on so to speak, which a few already have imo. but regardless, it is certainly in the party’s best interest to attack the gop where it hurts, with actual policy direction. why would the GOP be hurt by talking about policy when voters don't care about policy?
They would rather listen to the snake-oil salesmen that promises to give them more coal mine jobs.
|
I really don’t by the narrative about this just being about nailing Trump. If the president’s tax returns are not public, there is no way for to know if the president is being unduly enriched through their actions as president. Or to know about conflicts of interest. Unlike senators and house members, the President isnt’ subject to the disclosure rules required by the congress.
Trump has this power to warp are perception of politics. Throughout our lives, all our presidential candidates released their tax returns in an effort to be transparent with the voting public. To know exactly who the candidate is and they conducted themselves in the private sector. Trump didn’t because he isn’t interested in being transparent. He is interested in peddling a version of himself that cannot be substantiated if he is even slightly transparent. He didn’t release his tax returns for a reason and it is likely because he did a lot of questionable things to not pay taxes. But regardless of that, the Democrats in congress want to know why. Or at a minimum they want the public to question why he refuses to release them.
|
If Trump serves as the basis for codifying the tax release requirement, then fine, but like P6 says, the norm of releasing that data existed before him and it’ll exist after.
|
On April 09 2019 22:07 Plansix wrote:
I really don’t by the narrative about this just being about nailing Trump. If the president’s tax returns are not public, there is no way for to know if the president is being unduly enriched through their actions as president. Or to know about conflicts of interest. Unlike senators and house members, the President isnt’ subject to the disclosure rules required by the congress.
Trump has this power to warp are perception of politics. Throughout our lives, all our presidential candidates released their tax returns in an effort to be transparent with the voting public. To know exactly who the candidate is and they conducted themselves in the private sector. Trump didn’t because he isn’t interested in being transparent. He is interested in peddling a version of himself that cannot be substantiated if he is even slightly transparent. He didn’t release his tax returns for a reason and it is likely because he did a lot of questionable things to not pay taxes. But regardless of that, the Democrats in congress want to know why. Or at a minimum they want the public to question why he refuses to release them.
They weren't trying to be transparent. They were trying to give the illusion of transparency. It's one of the themes pointed out early with Trump. He exposes that pretty much all the presidents besides maybe Carter used the office to enrich themselves and their peers/friends. Trump just isn't hiding it or being remotely modest in his reach.
I personally think Trump's a lot less concerned about his taxes showing he's enriching himself, we know that already, than he is them exposing he's less wealthy than he brags. There is exactly 0 chance he hasn't inflated his net worth and that his taxes would expose that and that would actually humiliate him (even if only momentarily).
I think it's also pretty fair to say Hillary was going to enrich/empower herself and her foundations through the office as well. Notice she's doing a lot less $300,000+ speeches and the foundations donations have shrunk dramatically as soon as she was no longer likely to ever be president. No one is interested in their tax returns after being president either so even if they are transparent during their administration if they can take their kickbacks after leaving (like the cushy K street jobs for congress).
I think Wombat's right that it's a fruitless endeavor and only serves Trump. I personally think the tax returns are mostly useless in general but just make it a requirement like the other stuff for when you file for president or a fundraising requirement if that's easier legally. Push the deadline out as far as makes sense and your done. Then Democrats can get back to issues voters (rather than media consumers) care about.
On April 09 2019 22:13 farvacola wrote:
If Trump serves as the basis for codifying the tax release requirement, then fine, but like P6 says, the norm of releasing that data existed before him and it’ll exist after.
Relying on norms is kinda what got us here, no?
|
Sure, and to the extent Trump forces us to come up with actual rules in lieu of norms, we’ll be making a bit of lemonade out of all this piss.
|
The level of transparency in releasing their taxes has varied from presidential candidate to presidential candidate. I’m not going to sit here are argue that George Bush Sr., former director of the CIA was as transparent as someone like Jimmy Carter.
As for the concepts of Norms(which sounds more and more like some stat in an Nammoora JRPG), they are established and broken throughout US history. One could even argue all political history. There has to be some reliance on norms, as it is difficult to enforce laws on political figures. What arose in the boomer generation is that they, through political apathy, allowed many of the norms in congress to be chipped away and destroyed. This isn’t bad, per say. But it does mean that new norms have to be established.
But people should rejoice as the questioning of norms. Long abused conventions like the filibuster are now being questioned in presidential campaigns. The electoral college is being called into question. People are talking about things that would have seemed impossible to discussion 10 years ago. Because if people want big changes, ending the filibuster will do that. And it will mostly favor those who want to establish government programs, as entitlements are difficulty to take away.
|
On April 09 2019 22:30 farvacola wrote:
Sure, and to the extent Trump forces us to come up with actual rules in lieu of norms, we’ll be making a bit of lemonade out of all this piss.
I think that's kinda what I was getting at with the preceding part. That the chances of getting rules that require a transparency which would prevent presidents from unjustly enriching themselves and friends is practically 0 unless congress was replaced altogether.
They all have a mutual interest in preventing that level of transparency. If their mutual interest maintains a bipartisan consensus around subverting democracy with voting laws, locations, registrations, random election dates, etc... There is no chance of them writing laws that would not only risk their job, but the money they skim off the top as well.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On April 09 2019 22:30 farvacola wrote:
Sure, and to the extent Trump forces us to come up with actual rules in lieu of norms, we’ll be making a bit of lemonade out of all this piss.
Spoken like a true poet haha.
|
United States43004 Posts
On April 09 2019 19:56 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 19:21 micronesia wrote:On April 09 2019 13:43 Introvert wrote:
As for me, the way I see it is that he was already elected without releasing them. This is obvious dumpster diving by the Democrats looking for dirt. Worth noting is that Trump said many times during the campaign that he would release his tax returns once he was no longer under audit for them. Once he was elected, he responded to inquiries of, "are you still under audit or are you going to release your tax returns?" with "Nobody cares about that but you." As for you, did you care about the returns before the election? Did him lying to you make you stop caring after the election? exactly that. double standards all around.
Additionally there is no rule about not releasing them under audit and even if there was he could still release prior year ones. He might as well have claimed there was an IRS regulation that prevented people called Donald from releasing them.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On April 09 2019 22:39 Plansix wrote:
The level of transparency in releasing their taxes has varied from presidential candidate to presidential candidate. I’m not going to sit here are argue that George Bush Sr., former director of the CIA was as transparent as someone like Jimmy Carter.
As for the concepts of Norms(which sounds more and more like some stat in an Nammoora JRPG), they are established and broken throughout US history. One could even argue all political history. There has to be some reliance on norms, as it is difficult to enforce laws on political figures. What arose in the boomer generation is that they, through political apathy, allowed many of the norms in congress to be chipped away and destroyed. This isn’t bad, per say. But it does mean that new norms have to be established.
But people should rejoice as the questioning of norms. Long abused conventions like the filibuster are now being questioned in presidential campaigns. The electoral college is being called into question. People are talking about things that would have seemed impossible to discussion 10 years ago. Because if people want big changes, ending the filibuster will do that. And it will mostly favor those who want to establish government programs, as entitlements are difficulty to take away.
I’m somewhat torn on the filibuster. In theory I like aspects of it as a mechanism, as the norms governing its utilisation have shifted its completely abused.
|
On April 09 2019 22:52 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 22:39 Plansix wrote:
The level of transparency in releasing their taxes has varied from presidential candidate to presidential candidate. I’m not going to sit here are argue that George Bush Sr., former director of the CIA was as transparent as someone like Jimmy Carter.
As for the concepts of Norms(which sounds more and more like some stat in an Nammoora JRPG), they are established and broken throughout US history. One could even argue all political history. There has to be some reliance on norms, as it is difficult to enforce laws on political figures. What arose in the boomer generation is that they, through political apathy, allowed many of the norms in congress to be chipped away and destroyed. This isn’t bad, per say. But it does mean that new norms have to be established.
But people should rejoice as the questioning of norms. Long abused conventions like the filibuster are now being questioned in presidential campaigns. The electoral college is being called into question. People are talking about things that would have seemed impossible to discussion 10 years ago. Because if people want big changes, ending the filibuster will do that. And it will mostly favor those who want to establish government programs, as entitlements are difficulty to take away. I’m somewhat torn on the filibuster. In theory I like aspects of it as a mechanism, as the norms governing its utilisation have shifted its completely abused.
The filibuster was doomed as a practice the instant they allowed it to be used without forcing a senator to stand on the floor speaking. It was to easy to abuse after that. It was just a matter of time before we got rid of it.
I would also support bringing back the rule forcing senators to truly hold the floor. That would be some good TV, TBH.
|
Why is Bernie also hesitant about his tax returns though?
|
Barr taking questions from Congress atm. Republicans hammering on the "crisis" of drugs and human trafficking at the border while Democrats are asking pertinent questions about the report. As expected basically. He's stonewalling quite a bit on the report questions. This guy is a scumbag. Redacting information detrimental to the reputation of people not charged... if they were under investigation at all, and mentioned by name in the report, I promise you they weren't good people to begin with. This shit is infuriating. Just release it without intel information already and stop beating around the bush.
|
On April 09 2019 23:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Why is Bernie also hesitant about his tax returns though?
He likely just wants to make sure they are in order. The only thing worse than not releasing your tax returns is releasing ones that have some sort of error or omit something.
|
On April 09 2019 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2019 00:31 IgnE wrote:On April 09 2019 00:17 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2019 00:04 IyMoon wrote:On April 09 2019 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:58 IyMoon wrote:On April 08 2019 23:52 xDaunt wrote:On April 08 2019 23:40 byte-Curious wrote:On April 08 2019 23:35 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 08 2019 23:18 byte-Curious wrote:
Alright, good to know you're confident in Trump losing. Those predictions were never wrong before, right?
Just wait until he nukes some country for some imagined insult and see his approval rating skyrocket well into the sixties. Strongmen are ultra popular in war times, and I'm using both the words "strong" and "man" very loosely.
The guy was born with a silver spoon in his fat face and convinced poor people he's one of them who 'made it out'.
The guy can't do a push-up and his fans think he's an athlete.
The guy fucks pornstars and evangelicals love him.
The guy is a draft dodger and soldiers think he's some sort of golden god.
I won't put it past him to con his way into a second term, and I'm confident that if he gets it, he never leaves again.
I'm also confident that if he doesn't get it, he's going to poison the well against his successor and claim the election was rigged, while his enabler gleefully count their Exxon money and watch democracy end in a bang. Why people continually attempt to disarm Trump on the grounds that he’s strong, baffles me. Hah, that's precisely what I said when Sen. Warren started to get dragged into the mud with him on that stupid Pocahontas issue, which was a colossal fail for her. If she stuck to policies, she would rape him over the coals in the general election. Liawatha's problem isn't that she engaged with Trump in the mud. Her problem is that she was exposed for having embraced the worst form of liberal identity politics -- the "let's check the box" version -- and then demonstrated a tremendous lack of honesty about it. She not only exposed herself as a fraud, but she bungled her PR rehab efforts afterwards. At the very least, y'all have to admit that she has shown such levels of tone-deafness and political ineptitude that she has virtually disqualified herself from the presidency. As a Trump supporter... you're joking right? Like you honestly can't think people can be disqualified from being president anymore. You voted for a dude who sexually assaults people, who fucks porn stars after his wife give birth..... and you think being tone-deaf is disqualifying? Dude.... really? If you can't distinguish between the comparative levels of political acumen of Trump and Liawatha, I can't help you. If you can't realize that after trump, telling anyone on the left someone is disqualifying is a huge joke... I can't help you Trump’s amazing political skills to stumble into a win in 2016 by one of the closest margins in history, lose the popular vote and lead his party to a sound beating in 2018. A bottomless reservoir of skill. It’s a bit silly to mock Trump for his “amazing” political skills. It’s like you are mocking David for only just barely knocking out Goliath He doesn't have amazing political skills, so he should be mocked. He won by an accident. Stumbled across the finish line and got lucky against a historically bad candidate. David won by skill and precision.
I'd like people to stop underestimating Trump. As much as I loathe him and what he represents, the guy has a unique set of skills. He wouldn't have gone so far if he was only a fraud. At least he is a fraudster with an amazing instinct, and can bring all the coverage and narrative to revolve around him and his vision. He thrives in this.
He is a phenomenon, whether we like it or not.
As for why the democrats need the russian narrative to explain the win, well... If you target the voters that were (in my eyes) stupid enough to vote for him, you end up like Hillary and her "deplorables", and you're toast. So it's not like they have a choice, can't really insult a good chunk of the population if you want to have readers/a political future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
