Why Trump Won't Divest - or release his taxes - EVER

[fast]

He will end up blustering his way past ever revealing what his taxes were. He is not supposed to get past the fucking election without releasing his tax returns.

In what way do you hold it true that he is supposed to release his taxes? It kind of reminds me of tipping. Even though there is no obligation, duty, or responsibility, there is nevertheless a culturally driven expectation--with a liberally fostered bias, to put it mildly. Or for short, there is no obligation. (As in): there is no obligation to tip & there is no obligation to disclose taxes.

Yet, you posit the clear notion that he is supposed to. How do you get to that? I'm sure you can give reasons. You might can even list 'em and stack 'em, but my theory is that it's not a function of what might very well turn out to be good posited reason. I think it has to do with chicken. Let me explain:

At the kitchen table of a conservative, a guest need not worry about a motive for being offered the last piece of chicken. Conservatives have (on the otherhand) learned to politely decline offers from those inflicted with the liberal disease, for they bring the element of expectations into the mix. The conservative expects a courteous "thank you." The liberal is setting you up by trying to create an obligation--and those that don't expect something for nothing will at the very least expect $15 for a dismal display of what is maximally a $2 service.

What I'm trying to say is that the next time a conservative is having juicy on the inside succulent steak seared and crisp on the outside is reminded of that half baked grease soaked chicken because his wife wasn't trained to cook the aweful chicken at a high enough temperature, he's being reminded by the same kind of person that expects artificial obligations to be satisfied.

I don't give a damn if Trump blusters to the cows come home, but let's suppose (what a lovely thing to do), that I do give a damn. How does that translate into his supposing to reveal his taxes? See, this is where my disdain for reason creeps in. You can give me reasons (all kinds of reasons--hell, they can even be good reasons), but let them be reasons for how it is he is supposed to. A child may want what he wants when he wants it, and like a child who can blast out a slew of comebacks for not getting his way, they don't stand remotely relevant to the issue unless it addresses the issue.

 

[Elixir]

He will end up blustering his way past ever revealing what his taxes were. He is not supposed to get past the fucking election without releasing his tax returns.

In what way do you hold it true that he is supposed to release his taxes? It kind of reminds me of tipping.

Lol - not a bad analogy actually. Don the Con is definitely "that kind" of customer...
Of course he'd release his taxes - IF HE COULD.
But he can't, and that's not due to any restrictions to which he is subject, it's due to the fact that it would look even worse than his refusal to release his taxes. Which is pretty bad.

 

[dismal]

In what way do you hold it true that he is supposed to release his taxes? It kind of reminds me of tipping.

Lol - not a bad analogy actually. Don the Con is definitely "that kind" of customer...
Of course he'd release his taxes - IF HE COULD.
But he can't, and that's not due to any restrictions to which he is subject, it's due to the fact that it would look even worse than his refusal to release his taxes. Which is pretty bad.

Yes, not releasing his taxes could cost him the election!

Oh wait.

Nevermind.

 

[Elixir]

Lol - not a bad analogy actually. Don the Con is definitely "that kind" of customer...
Of course he'd release his taxes - IF HE COULD.
But he can't, and that's not due to any restrictions to which he is subject, it's due to the fact that it would look even worse than his refusal to release his taxes. Which is pretty bad.

Yes, not releasing his taxes could cost him the election!

Oh wait.

Nevermind.

Great point. Now that he has won the election, I guess he has no need for any credibility. He can go right ahead and release his taxes and let his fraudulence, conflicts of interest and con-artistry be seen by all, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, right?
So... why doesn't he release his tax returns?

 

[Malintent]

He will end up blustering his way past ever revealing what his taxes were. He is not supposed to get past the fucking election without releasing his tax returns.

In what way do you hold it true that he is supposed to release his taxes? It kind of reminds me of tipping. Even though there is no obligation, duty, or responsibility, there is nevertheless a culturally driven expectation--with a liberally fostered bias, to put it mildly. Or for short, there is no obligation. (As in): there is no obligation to tip & there is no obligation to disclose taxes.

Yet, you posit the clear notion that he is supposed to. How do you get to that? I'm sure you can give reasons. You might can even list 'em and stack 'em, but my theory is that it's not a function of what might very well turn out to be good posited reason. I think it has to do with chicken. Let me explain:

At the kitchen table of a conservative, a guest need not worry about a motive for being offered the last piece of chicken. Conservatives have (on the otherhand) learned to politely decline offers from those inflicted with the liberal disease, for they bring the element of expectations into the mix. The conservative expects a courteous "thank you." The liberal is setting you up by trying to create an obligation--and those that don't expect something for nothing will at the very least expect $15 for a dismal display of what is maximally a $2 service.

What I'm trying to say is that the next time a conservative is having juicy on the inside succulent steak seared and crisp on the outside is reminded of that half baked grease soaked chicken because his wife wasn't trained to cook the aweful chicken at a high enough temperature, he's being reminded by the same kind of person that expects artificial obligations to be satisfied.

I don't give a damn if Trump blusters to the cows come home, but let's suppose (what a lovely thing to do), that I do give a damn. How does that translate into his supposing to reveal his taxes? See, this is where my disdain for reason creeps in. You can give me reasons (all kinds of reasons--hell, they can even be good reasons), but let them be reasons for how it is he is supposed to. A child may want what he wants when he wants it, and like a child who can blast out a slew of comebacks for not getting his way, they don't stand remotely relevant to the issue unless it addresses the issue.

The issue is that we never had (nor had the Founders ever imagined) that someone so financially attached to foreign entities would even be considered for public office, much less presidency. The government Ethics office regulates these types of dangerous conflicts of interest and serve to prevent them from occurring... except with the president and vice president, because it never was thought that such a dangerous candidate would be considered. That, in the highest level of irony possible, is why the Electoral College was created.. .to PREVENT this type of occurrence...
The issue with Trumps taxes is that 1) since the 1970's every president has honorably turned this information over to show there was no conflict of interest, and 2) Trump has the most ridiculous conflicts of interest all over the globe, which would be revealed by his taxes, and enough media would have prevented the Republican party from even considering pushing him forward.

 

[bilby]

In what way do you hold it true that he is supposed to release his taxes? It kind of reminds me of tipping. Even though there is no obligation, duty, or responsibility, there is nevertheless a culturally driven expectation--with a liberally fostered bias, to put it mildly. Or for short, there is no obligation. (As in): there is no obligation to tip & there is no obligation to disclose taxes.

Yet, you posit the clear notion that he is supposed to. How do you get to that? I'm sure you can give reasons. You might can even list 'em and stack 'em, but my theory is that it's not a function of what might very well turn out to be good posited reason. I think it has to do with chicken. Let me explain:

At the kitchen table of a conservative, a guest need not worry about a motive for being offered the last piece of chicken. Conservatives have (on the otherhand) learned to politely decline offers from those inflicted with the liberal disease, for they bring the element of expectations into the mix. The conservative expects a courteous "thank you." The liberal is setting you up by trying to create an obligation--and those that don't expect something for nothing will at the very least expect $15 for a dismal display of what is maximally a $2 service.

What I'm trying to say is that the next time a conservative is having juicy on the inside succulent steak seared and crisp on the outside is reminded of that half baked grease soaked chicken because his wife wasn't trained to cook the aweful chicken at a high enough temperature, he's being reminded by the same kind of person that expects artificial obligations to be satisfied.

I don't give a damn if Trump blusters to the cows come home, but let's suppose (what a lovely thing to do), that I do give a damn. How does that translate into his supposing to reveal his taxes? See, this is where my disdain for reason creeps in. You can give me reasons (all kinds of reasons--hell, they can even be good reasons), but let them be reasons for how it is he is supposed to. A child may want what he wants when he wants it, and like a child who can blast out a slew of comebacks for not getting his way, they don't stand remotely relevant to the issue unless it addresses the issue.

The issue is that we never had (nor had the Founders ever imagined) that someone so financially attached to foreign entities would even be considered for public office, much less presidency. The government Ethics office regulates these types of dangerous conflicts of interest and serve to prevent them from occurring... except with the president and vice president, because it never was thought that such a dangerous candidate would be considered. That, in the highest level of irony possible, is why the Electoral College was created.. .to PREVENT this type of occurrence...
The issue with Trumps taxes is that 1) since the 1970's every president has honorably turned this information over to show there was no conflict of interest, and 2) Trump has the most ridiculous conflicts of interest all over the globe, which would be revealed by his taxes, and enough media would have prevented the Republican party from even considering pushing him forward.

Ultimately this is an indication that the electorate, not the system, is broken.

It was received wisdom that the voters would never back a candidate who didn't demonstrate his probity, by releasing his taxes and by ensuring that he didn't give even the appearance of being influenced by foreign powers. It was unthinkable that a candidate who failed to meet this minimum standard could ever be elected - so it was unthinkable that a candidate might choose not to release his tax information, as to fail to do so would make him unelectable.

The electorate failed the nation, and the world, by electing a man who didn't meet this informal level of qualification. Now the world must live with the consequences - but whether the US electorate will learn from this remains to be seen.

 

[fast]

The issue is that we never had (nor had the Founders ever imagined) that someone so financially attached to foreign entities would even be considered for public office, much less presidency. The government Ethics office regulates these types of dangerous conflicts of interest and serve to prevent them from occurring... except with the president and vice president, because it never was thought that such a dangerous candidate would be considered. That, in the highest level of irony possible, is why the Electoral College was created.. .to PREVENT this type of occurrence...
The issue with Trumps taxes is that 1) since the 1970's every president has honorably turned this information over to show there was no conflict of interest, and 2) Trump has the most ridiculous conflicts of interest all over the globe, which would be revealed by his taxes, and enough media would have prevented the Republican party from even considering pushing him forward.

Ultimately this is an indication that the electorate, not the system, is broken.

It was received wisdom that the voters would never back a candidate who didn't demonstrate his probity, by releasing his taxes and by ensuring that he didn't give even the appearance of being influenced by foreign powers. It was unthinkable that a candidate who failed to meet this minimum standard could ever be elected - so it was unthinkable that a candidate might choose not to release his tax information, as to fail to do so would make him unelectable.

The electorate failed the nation, and the world, by electing a man who didn't meet this informal level of qualification. Now the world must live with the consequences - but whether the US electorate will learn from this remains to be seen.

He didn't fail to disclose his taxes. He didn't disclose his taxes, but not doing something doesn't imply a failure to do something. The inverse, however, would be true, as a failure to do something implies not doing something, but we cannot infer failure to act from not acting.

That a hammer does not do as a screwdriver can is not a failure of the hammer. I didn't give to the Red Cross, but I did not fail to give to the Red Cross. If I try to succeed then don't, then you have some room to argue that I have failed, but not running a marathon is not a failure to run a marathon.

Are you going to hold an inductive argument to the same standard as we would a deductive argument then argue the inductive argument has failed in some way because it does not do as a deductive argument can? Many do; I don't, and that's not a failure on my part.

 

[bilby]

Ultimately this is an indication that the electorate, not the system, is broken.

It was received wisdom that the voters would never back a candidate who didn't demonstrate his probity, by releasing his taxes and by ensuring that he didn't give even the appearance of being influenced by foreign powers. It was unthinkable that a candidate who failed to meet this minimum standard could ever be elected - so it was unthinkable that a candidate might choose not to release his tax information, as to fail to do so would make him unelectable.

The electorate failed the nation, and the world, by electing a man who didn't meet this informal level of qualification. Now the world must live with the consequences - but whether the US electorate will learn from this remains to be seen.

He didn't fail to disclose his taxes. He didn't disclose his taxes, but not doing something doesn't imply a failure to do something. The inverse, however, would be true, as a failure to do something implies not doing something, but we cannot infer failure to act from not acting.

That a hammer does not do as a screwdriver can is not a failure of the hammer. I didn't give to the Red Cross, but I did not fail to give to the Red Cross. If I try to succeed then don't, then you have some room to argue that I have failed, but not running a marathon is not a failure to run a marathon.

Are you going to hold an inductive argument to the same standard as we would a deductive argument then argue the inductive argument has failed in some way because it does not do as a deductive argument can? Many do; I don't, and that's not a failure on my part.

OK, if that makes you happy

I don't know why you care about this minute and unimportant figure of speech, but as it has no bearing on the meaning of my post, please feel free to respond to this edited version with identical meaning:

Ultimately this is an indication that the electorate, not the system, is broken.

It was received wisdom that the voters would never back a candidate who didn't demonstrate his probity, by releasing his taxes and by ensuring that he didn't give even the appearance of being influenced by foreign powers. It was unthinkable that a candidate who did not meet this minimum standard could ever be elected - so it was unthinkable that a candidate might choose not to release his tax information, as to not do so would make him unelectable.

The electorate failed the nation, and the world, by electing a man who didn't meet this informal level of qualification. Now the world must live with the consequences - but whether the US electorate will learn from this remains to be seen.

Happy now?

Perhaps we need a 'Pointless semantic quibbles' thread, to save us from such meaningless derails.

 

[laughing dog]

He didn't fail to disclose his taxes.

Yes he did fail to disclose to taxes. He was asked numerous times to disclose his taxes and he failed to comply with the request. Duh.

 

[fast]

Dude, what I said is central to what you said and what the person said that you said it to and to what I've been carrying on about. Malintent spoke of who has done what since the 1970's. What they have done is release their taxes. Why the positive twist by referencing their deeds as honorable? Something they SHOULD do? SUPPOSED to do? Some minimum STANDARD?

I think it's fantastically obvious that I have in no way derailed anything, and it's certainly substantive and not semantic quibble.

 

[fast]

He didn't fail to disclose his taxes.

Yes he did fail to disclose to taxes. He was asked numerous times to disclose his taxes and he failed to comply with the request. Duh.

Oh my! Are you kidding?

If I receive a summons to appear in court and don't show up, that's a failure.
If I receive a collections letter to pay a bill and don't pay, that's a failure.
If I take a math test and score very poorly, that's a failure.
If I aim and shoot to hit the bullseye and miss, that's a failure.

If I receive a verbal message or written letter, be it a request or a demand, and do not comply, then noncompliance might or might not be a failure--depending on the existence of an underlying responsibility, duty, or obligation. If I should do something and don't, then you have room to argue, but not complying with numerous requests is not a failure unless you you can show that there is in fact something more than some contrived expectation or made up standard to which people are supposed to meet.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes he did fail to disclose to taxes. He was asked numerous times to disclose his taxes and he failed to comply with the request. Duh.

Oh my! Are you kidding? .,,blah blah blah...

Fail has a number of well understood meanings ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fail). As a transitive verb, Trump most certainly failed to comply with the request.

Why do you feel the need to post such pathetic and incorrect quibble in order to defend Trump?

 

[fast]

Oh my! Are you kidding? .,,blah blah blah...

Fail has a number of well understood meanings ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fail). As a transitive verb, Trump most certainly failed to comply with the request.

Why do you feel the need to post such pathetic and incorrect quibble in order to defend Trump?

Two bags of tricks in one!

 

[dismal]

He super double plus failed to do something he was not required to do*.

*and won the Presidency.

 

[dismal]

Also, I failed to eat corn flakes today.

 

[KeepTalking]

Fail has a number of well understood meanings ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fail). As a transitive verb, Trump most certainly failed to comply with the request.

Why do you feel the need to post such pathetic and incorrect quibble in order to defend Trump?

Two bags of tricks in one!

I know, right. You failed at making a substantial point in this thread, and failed at failing to troll several other posters in this thread at the same time. Well played, sir.

 

[Elixir]

He super double plus failed to do something he was not required to do*.

*and won the Presidency.

Ain't it great? It will be exciting to watch our New Leader explore a whole new, vast realm of things not required of him that he can fail to do! Build a wall, repeal Obamacare, lock up Hillary, deport 11 million people, institute religious tests for immigration... the list of impossibilities is virtually endless!

 

[bilby]

Also, I failed to eat corn flakes today.

Only if someone expected you to eat cornflakes.

Just as many people expected that the 2016 presidential candidates would release their taxes - and were surprised when one of them failed to do so.

Failure to do something implies that it is expected, not that it is mandatory.

 

[fast]

Failure to do something implies that it is expected, not that it is mandatory.

I'm open-minded to that line of reasoning.

I agree that there is an expectation. I can even see from where that expectation originates: the observation that it's become customary--talk about tipping being an apt analogy! Why else would others point out that presidents have followed suit it ritualistic fashion?

Trump has vowed to make America great again; are we to suspect success by his following in the failed traveled footsteps of those that have cowered to the media magnified public outcries? He defies anyone and everyone that stands as a barrier to success.

The problem with these culturally driven expectations is in its departure from two-sided created obligations. How do you logically jump the canyon between "they've all done it" to "he should do it too?" People, well, people cut from a particular cloth, seem to have few qualms in exclaiming the presence of obligations where no such obligations truly exist. In a similar vein, it apparently doesn't take much for people to expect what was never in fact deserved; it's easy for many to slip on over from "I want something for nothing" to "expecting to receive something for little to nothing."

These past presidents have not had the balls to stand up to those that could have utterly destroyed their chances of winning the presidency. He went against his own party (HIS OWN PARTY!). He went against the entire media institution (TOOK ON THE MEDIA!). The man is driven. His eye is on the ball. When winning by such a person is so important that doing what's right is nothing greater than a secondary concern, a few baseless expectations supported on nothing greater than the fact prior sissies couldn't handle to traverse the course he's taken isn't (and by a long shot) going to impede in producing the results he's after.

 

[dismal]

Also, I failed to eat corn flakes today.

Only if someone expected you to eat cornflakes.

Just as many people expected that the 2016 presidential candidates would release their taxes - and were surprised when one of them failed to do so.

Failure to do something implies that it is expected, not that it is mandatory.

Sounds like some people had an expectations fail then. I'm not going to be responsible for whether someone thinks I should eat corn flakes or not.