ADVERTISEMENT

Holy. Crap.

Lol. That's cute. Who exactly was concerned about Mitt Romney having a conflict of interest? And then when he produced his tax records and showed how much he made, paid in taxes, and donated, did it make a difference to anyone? Nope, he put his dog in a kennel on top of the station wagon, that son of a bitch.

I don't know if its cute or not, but its the truth. It's the same reason many presidents put their assets in a blind trust.
 
I don't know if its cute or not, but its the truth. It's the same reason many presidents put their assets in a blind trust.
Well please tell me, which presidential candidates in the past were you concerned about having a conflict of interest?
 
I don't know if its cute or not, but its the truth. It's the same reason many presidents put their assets in a blind trust.
There are a lot who did not. In fact, the supermajority of Clinton and, even more so, Obama wealth has come in their post-Presidential terms.
 
Well please tell me, which presidential candidates in the past were you concerned about having a conflict of interest?

I am not sure your point. It is just for full disclosure purposes. Basically every major candidate in the lasts 60 years give or take has done it. So I don't get why it matters who I had concerns about, because if they release their information, then we are at least able to see if anything should be concerning.
 
I'm sorry, but releasing tax returns is not the same as a complete trust, let alone post-Presidential term conflicts-of-interest -- let alone Hillary's role as a Secretary of an entire Department, among others.
 
There are a lot who did not.

Not all do, but it isn't necessary for all. Obama didn't, but he did release his assets and his investments wouldn't really have any potential conflicts because they were mostly treasury notes and index funds. But he did at least release his assets so we could see there weren't any potential conflicts.
 
Not all do, but it isn't necessary for all. Obama didn't, but he did release his assets and his investments wouldn't really have any potential conflicts because they were mostly treasury notes and index funds. But he did at least release his assets so we could see there weren't any potential conflicts.
That's easy to do when your net worth is only $1.3M or so.

Trump has countless assets and liabilities that are likely embargoed from public disclosure. No one talks about that. I'm not saying he couldn't release his returns partially redacted, but I also have to agree that the redaction would only make it worse too.

Heck, it's what got Hillary constantly in trouble, and I'm not talking the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Global Initiative was shut down for a reason. There was no disclosure whatsoever, and it ran amuck of various international laws.

This is why I despise the 3rd grader US media. 40 years ago, they'd 'educate' the masses on why some things in Trump's returns cannot be disclosed. Now they just look for ways to demonize him, among others.
 
Kinzinger nailed it here. I've been sharing this to social media.
  • GOP lawmaker: Chant at Trump rally 'would send chills down the spines of our Founding Fathers'
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/18/poli...hant-trump-rally-reaction-congress/index.html
    QUOTE: "I deeply disagree with the extreme left & have been disgusted by their tone. I woke up today equally disgusted - chants like 'send her back' are ugly, wrong, & would send chills down the spines of our Founding Fathers. This ugliness must end, or we risk our great union," Kinzinger said in a tweet on Thursday morning.
I've given up on my left-aligned colleagues that have started using the 'racist' word at even me. Regardless, as Kinzinger points out, we still have the "Trump Problem." Yes, there is a "Trump Problem." And it's not a good time for the Republican party because we're starting to see a great shift where successful immigrants are becoming Republicans, and running on Republican tickets.

Scherie Murray from Jamaican for starters

Women like her are not allowed into the Democratic party, especially not with the rise of the Neo-Progressives of 2018+. These are the women (and men) the Republican party should be courting, and the "Send Her (or Him) Back" chant is only going to backfire.

Yes, I too get frustrated with people who come to the US and fail to understand basic American Libertarism and why we've avoided so many of the 'state controls' of other nations. But the answer is never to pull this type of chant. Honestly, it's only going to alienate prospective, successful immigrants to the US -- the ones that can actually bring about real, successful immigration reform.

The Democratic party, with full US News Media backing, has now becoming the exclusionist party. It's time for Republicans to showcase they are the inclusionist party -- especially of successful people who make America great. If you really believe 'Make American Great Again,' that should include all the legal immigrants who have become business owners.

New Americans who know exactly how and why the current system -- which only breeds more welfare claims, statistically after 10 years -- is why we're failing. Especially since the Democratic party is not interested in Green Cards and citizenship, but more underpaid "Visa" and "Undocumented" type non-sense, as their corporate masters love it even more than the Republican party now.
Trump is now 'walking it back.'
It'll be the 'cork back in' situation, and many won't be happy in all cases, but it needed to happen regardless. Right now it's unifying the Democratic party, and causing unrest in the Republican party.

Maybe this will get Omar and AOC to 'walk back' some of their comments on those supporting the Jewish faith and law enforcement? If not, then the Democratic party will continue to suffer, while the Republicans gain more ranks.

Reality TV and Social Media stars have limits to their cult-of-personality ... in all parties.
 
That's easy to do when your net worth is only $1.3M or so.

Trump has countless assets and liabilities that are likely embargoed from public disclosure. No one talks about that. I'm not saying he couldn't release his returns partially redacted, but I also have to agree that the redaction would only make it worse too.

Heck, it's what got Hillary constantly in trouble, and I'm not talking the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Global Initiative was shut down for a reason. There was no disclosure whatsoever, and it ran amuck of various international laws.

This is why I despise the 3rd grader US media. 40 years ago, they'd 'educate' the masses on why some things in Trump's returns cannot be disclosed. Now they just look for ways to demonize him, among others.

Why would his assets be "embargoed" from public disclosure? Before winning the presidency he was a private citizen, so why in the world would he need to redact stuff like its is highly classified information?
 
I am not sure your point. It is just for full disclosure purposes. Basically every major candidate in the lasts 60 years give or take has done it. So I don't get why it matters who I had concerns about, because if they release their information, then we are at least able to see if anything should be concerning.
You really have a talent for deferring when being questioned. It matters because you are concerned about this president. Were you concerned about others or is this an anomaly?
 
You really have a talent for deferring when being questioned. It matters because you are concerned about this president. Were you concerned about others or is this an anomaly?

I want everyone running for office, or at least when they are the party candidate, to release their financial information, so the answer is yes. The only reason it was a big deal with Trump, is because he refused to do it. Satisfied now?
 
I want everyone running for office, or at least when they are the party candidate, to release their financial information, so the answer is yes. The only reason it was a big deal with Trump, is because he refused to do it. Satisfied now?

Would seeing tax returns change your mind on who you choose to vote for?
 
Why would his assets be "embargoed" from public disclosure? Before winning the presidency he was a private citizen, so why in the world would he need to redact stuff like its is highly classified information?
3rd party agreements

Having worked at Red Hat -- who does everything in-the-open, and has 0 proprietary or hidden software -- for a full decade, 3rd party agreements and embargo were the biggest PITA to deal with.
I actually got my butt-in-a-sling more than once, the one way I could be fired by legal -- or anyone else for that matter. Sales attempted more than once, but legal always backed me -- i.e., worked well in reverse too. ;)

Intel's NDAs were the worst -- including the 2017+ TLB, etc... security issues that I knew about back in late 2007, since before Nehelem was released. I.e., we had Nehelem pre-release systems on Wall Street for trading a good 6 months before customers.

I just pointed people to the initial 5 (and later it grew) Linux kernel commits that added microcode and workarounds for lack of microcode. If you know how the TLB and paging works in IA-32e (aka x86-64), then you can quickly figure out how Intel doesn't 'protect' things in hardware, like AMD (and even ARM, especially late ARMv7 and ARMv8), does.

Same with Intel at Timesys and others before that.

I knew about the Atom 6 months before release. I even told them they were going to regret selling ARM to Marvell. Sure enough, they did, and finally re-licensed ARM a few years ago. It was kinda funny how I couldn't tell Intel about the superscalar, out-of-order, ARMv7 developments, while we were working with them on in-order Atom.

Talk about biting my lip!

Trump is in the same boat. He's got a lot of things that he wouldn't mind disclosing, but cannot legally. Again, it's made worse by lack of full disclosure, let alone redacting.
 
Last edited:
Would seeing tax returns change your mind on who you choose to vote for?

That is a hypothetical that is impossible to answer without knowing what exactly is in the tax returns. But again, it is really just more about disclosure, so lawmakers aren't trying to pass laws just to benefit their bank accounts and things of that nature. This really isn't a difficult concept to understand.
 
3rd party agreements

Having worked at Red Hat -- who does everything in-the-open, and has 0 proprietary or hidden software -- for a full decade, 3rd party agreements and embargo were the biggest PITA to deal with. I got my butt-in-a-sling more than once, the one way I could be fired by legal (or anyone else for that matter).

Intel's NDAs were the worst -- including the 2017+ TLB, etc... security issues that I knew about back in late 2007, since before Nehelem was released. I.e., we had Nehelem pre-release systems on Wall Street for trading a good 6 months before customers.

Same with Intel at Timesys before that. I knew about the Atom 6 months before release. I even told them they were going to regret selling ARM to Marvell. Sure enough, they did, and finally re-licensed ARM a few years ago.

It was kinda funny how I couldn't tell Intel about the superscalar, out-of-order, ARMv7 developments, while we were working with them on in-order Atom. Talk about biting my lip!

You are talking about different things. I am just talking about his assets, not about violating NDA's or giving up company secrets.
 
That is a hypothetical that is impossible to answer without knowing what exactly is in the tax returns. But again, it is really just more about disclosure, so lawmakers aren't trying to pass laws just to benefit their bank accounts and things of that nature. This really isn't a difficult concept to understand.
Ok. Well, is there any possibility that something in Hillary's tax returns would have made you vote for Trump?
 
You are talking about different things. I am just talking about his assets, not about violating NDA's or giving up company secrets.
Obviously you haven't been a party to some contracts with related assets and liabilities that cannot be publicly disclosed. ;)
 
Even if he released his returns, they're probably not going to list out the information that you're hoping will be there. Even if he released the multitude of tax returns from all of his companies, you still may not see any of that listed. This is really just an overblown talking point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
Obviously you haven't been a party to some contracts with related assets and liabilities that cannot be publicly disclosed. ;)

We are talking about stocks and bonds and things of that nature, not contracts with a company.
 
We are talking about stocks and bonds and things of that nature, not contracts with a company.
Again, ownership and related assets and liabilities are intertwined. I've been a party to several that would greatly affect tax returns.

I've honestly learned more international law and fiscal requirements of so many countries as of late, all of which affect the US tax code for US citizens, than I ever thought I'd ever been exposed of in my life. The educational side benefit of being a corporate officer of a non-profit in 186 countries.
 
Again, ownership and related assets and liabilities are intertwined. I've been a party to several that would greatly affect tax returns.

I've honestly learned more international law and fiscal requirements of so many countries as of late, all of which affect the US tax code for US citizens, than I ever thought I'd ever been exposed of in my life. The educational side benefit of being a corporate officer of a non-profit in 186 countries.

You are way over complicating this. Every president has investments and business interests, and every one since Nixon has released their tax returns but one. It is not unreasonable at all to want to know who our politicians profit off of, so we can better evaluate if their policies are for the good of America, or the good of themselves. I will just leave it at that and agree to disagree.
 
You are way over complicating this. Every president has investments and business interests, and every one since Nixon has released their tax returns but one. It is not unreasonable at all to want to know who our politicians profit off of, so we can better evaluate if their policies are for the good of America, or the good of themselves. I will just leave it at that and agree to disagree.
Because it's complicated in the case of Trump on all sorts of levels. I know if I was him, I wouldn't want it public. He's going to have to redact all sorts of things, which will likely include key amounts.

I.e., I know everyone wants to see if Trump is still showing a 'net loss.' But it's far more than just that.
 
Because it's complicated in the case of Trump on all sorts of levels. I know if I was him, I wouldn't want it public. He's going to have to redact all sorts of things, which will likely include key amounts.

I.e., I know everyone wants to see if Trump is still showing a 'net loss.' But it's far more than just that.

It isn't about a net loss, it is about potential conflicts of interest. It is nothing more than a full disclosure type of thing. This is has been accepted in this country by both parties for close to 60 years, but now all of a sudden even less transparency by our leaders is a good thing I guess.
 
It isn't about a net loss, it is about potential conflicts of interest. It is nothing more than a full disclosure type of thing. This is has been accepted in this country by both parties for close to 60 years, but now all of a sudden even less transparency by our leaders is a good thing I guess.
You’re acting like his returns will list everyone he’s done business with and how much he made from all of them. That’s not likely. You’ll also need a lot more than his personal returns.
 
You’re acting like his returns will list everyone he’s done business with and how much he made from all of them. That’s not likely. You’ll also need a lot more than his personal returns.
Exactly. It's not like he is getting w2s or 1099s from his business dealings. There is literally nothing in his tax returns that will tell us who he does business with.
 
Exactly. It's not like he is getting w2s or 1099s from his business dealings. There is literally nothing in his tax returns that will tell us who he does business with.

If liberals actually had jobs and paid taxes they’d understand this. Tax returns don’t tell you shit about how you made money, just what you have.
 
Why is this thread 5 pages long? What I'd their to discuss? Trump is 100% racist, you inbreds are just as racist to defend him.
 
Why is this thread 5 pages long? What I'd their to discuss? Trump is 100% racist, you inbreds are just as racist to defend him.
You have more hate in you than 1000 Trumps or his supporters ever could for their worst enemies

You are a mentally ill caveman who needs to seek help
 
Why would his assets be "embargoed" from public disclosure? Before winning the presidency he was a private citizen, so why in the world would he need to redact stuff like its is highly classified information?
I just don’t understand why liberals are so hell bent on his tax returns. The only thin I can think of they don’t know how taxes and the IRS works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
ADVERTISEMENT