Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#2652 Mar 15 2017 at 8:36 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,548 posts
http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/World/2017/03/14/22710663.html

So, Trump taxes. Decade old, "Client copy" unsolicited and preceded by an administration statement of how illegal it is to report. Just happens to show him paying 25ish percent taxes.

So the copy that was given to Trump somehow gets sent in the mail anonymously to a news outlet and shows nothing that should have prevented him from disclosing his taxes prior to now. The administration then makes a rather weak show of denouncing its release.
#2653 Mar 15 2017 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
Maybe they thought hard evidence of what everyone already knew would somehow affect the election. You know, if you ignore the university, steaks, ties, bottled water, casinos, airlines ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2654 Mar 15 2017 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,338 posts
I was genuinely surprised he was paying that much. Boy needs to learn to loophole already.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2655 Mar 15 2017 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
It was more about finding out whether or not there were conflicts of interest between his businesses and his policies, which these two pages really don't answer. Considering how little noise there's been from the White House over this leak as opposed to when anything else leaks and how little information you can actually get from these pages you could make an argument that this administration purposefully leaked it themselves to try to both quiet some noise left over from the elections and distract from the rest of the nonsense that comes out of the führer's mouth.

Or, while I may not be a fan and am totally trying to treat everyone equally but this totally answers everything perfectly and nothing else should be asked.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2656 Mar 15 2017 at 10:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,338 posts
Wait, I thought the stuff coming from his mouth was the distraction?

Guy is playing some serious 4D chess here.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2657 Mar 15 2017 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He's distracting us from the distractions by using distractive stuff.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2658 Mar 15 2017 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Guy is playing some serious 4D chess here.
Well, it is how they got that water deregulation through that just coincidentally happened to help golf courses most with little noise.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2659 Mar 15 2017 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,338 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Guy is playing some serious 4D chess here.
Well, it is how they got that water deregulation through that just coincidentally happened to help golf courses most with little noise.
That's okay Trump promised he'd never play golf while President, so it shouldn't have any effect right?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2660 Mar 16 2017 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
Shockingly to exactly no one the problem with 45's travel ban wasn't the number of countries, as two federal judges rule against it again.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2661 Mar 16 2017 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I think you mean "two activists". Activists in robes. Activists in robes dedicated to preserving balance.

Druids. Trumps's travel ban was blocked by druids.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2662 Mar 16 2017 at 8:01 AM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
Funny, they don't look Drui-ish.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2663 Mar 16 2017 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,338 posts
Noobs are in cloth armor, that's the problem. They aren't priests or mages, so shouldn't be rolling on that armor in the first place.

Edited, Mar 16th 2017 7:41am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2664 Mar 16 2017 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Funny, they don't look Drui-ish.

Maybe Ginsburg.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2665 Mar 16 2017 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
So apparently yesterday there was an interview with 45 and Tucker Carlson, where when asked about the wiretaps he said he found out about them when he was reading the New York Times, and then watching Fox News and the word "wiretap" appeared on both.

Edited, Mar 16th 2017 2:45pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2666 Mar 16 2017 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Was depressingly funny: "So I was reading the New York Times, which is terrible fake news by the way, and they said I was wiretapped! So that's how I know!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2667 Mar 16 2017 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
can you seriously sit there and claim that this wouldn't have been the outraged narrative pushed about in the public square, complete with cries for investigation?
We're not talking about "the public square," but specifically your personal reaction to the current situation. You know, the one that is actually happening, which you've actually commented on in a way that actually conforms to your regular pattern.


Huh? It's not about how I feel, or whether I believe in one thing sans evidence or another thing sans evidence. I'm speaking specifically and directly about the media reaction to claims about Obama wiretapping the Trump campaign versus the media reaction to claims about Trumps campaign colluding with the Russians. I'm reasonably certain I made this exact point earlier:

me just a bit up this very page wrote:
Yeah. A good helping of this as well. My nearly immediate take on this was based on the nearly instantaneous and reflexive media backlash to Trump's tweets. I watched the interview with the ABC journalist and some communications person from the White House, and the journalist was practically yelling "If, If, IF!!!", to make the point that the allegations were only relevant if they were actually true. My instant thought was "yeah, and IF the Russians leaked the data to Wikileaks, and IF their intent was to influence the election, and IF Trump or his people had any involvement in it, then you'd have a story too". i saw the contrast to how willing and nearly gleefully the media jumped on one story, while having the opposite reaction to the other.

There's the same amount of evidence for one as there is for the other, right? They're both essentially speculation. We've got the Manchurian Candidate speculation versus the Watergate President speculation. Both are juicy. Both would represent serious problems if true. But neither one has any more evidence for it than the other. And my suspicion is that Trump, once again, is setting up the media for that exact comparison. Why jump on one story, but not the other? It's not about one having more facts to support it. It's entirely about which story the majority of those in the media wants to be true. That's just pure bias on their part.



Again. My point has been that both claims have little to no evidence to support them. Both should be treated with a large grain of salt. But I'm seeing a massive disconnect in terms of how each claim is being reported and thus how the public perception of them is different. My point about how different the reaction would have been if it had been Obama making the claim about the Bush administration spying on his campaign was directly aligned with that point. So I'm not sure how you got so far off said point.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
You're kidding yourself if you think at least one of those answers isn't "yes".
One of those "yes"es is just a distraction from the topic.


No it's not a "distraction", unless by distraction, you really mean "excellent point that puts the event being discussed in proper relative perspective".

Quote:
You're kidding yourself if you think that anyone believes you wouldn't be arguing Bush's innocence if Obama had accused him of wiretapping just because he's a Republican.


What other people may believe is not the point. What I would actually be doing is. And in that case, I'd have the exact same response I've had to every single one of these sorts of issues. I would take a "let's wait for the facts to come out" position. Sure, I might engage in speculative discussion. And yes, if there's an overwhelming theme of "he's guilty!" prior to said facts emerging, I would respond to those in a manner that someone like yourself might interpret as "arguing Bush's innocence". But I'm really arguing "let's not assume someone is guilty until we have actual proof". You know, the standard we're actually supposed to follow for such things?

I'll repeat something I've mentioned many times on this forum. If it appears as though my statements and positions are biased, it's because I'm responding to an overwhelming bias on this forum. If you don't hear me defending or excusing the actions of Democrats often on this forum, it's because there's almost no attacks against, arguments against, or accusations made against Democrats on this forum. If I were posting on a Right leaning forum, and it was chock full of people insisting that "Obama is a Muslim and here's the proof!", or "Obama was born in Kenya, cause here's his Kenyan birth certificate!", or "Obama had Trump tapped, cause here's the story on Breitbart that says so!", I'd be arguing against them, with the same sorts of argument I'm using here. I'd similarly be assessing the likelihood of one action versus another, one theory versus another, and weigh the odds of one versus the other. And you know what? I'd likely be labeled as some crazy anti-American liberal for it too (which would be funny really).

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Silly me for trying to apply the same rules to everyone equally.
So you admit that you're not actually applying the same rules to everyone equally?


The funny thing is that I actually am. But I'm in an environment where nearly no one else is, so my "centrist" position appears to be biased in opposition to the bias of those in this environment. How many times do I have to say that I put the same amount of weight on claims that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians as I do that the Obama administration tapped the Trump campaign for this to sink in? The reason this appears biased, is because nearly everyone else posting here does not place the same weight on those claims. So to them, it appears as though I'm defending Trump on the whole collusion thing, and then defending Trump again with his claim of wiretapping. When the truth is that I'm taking the exact same "we don't know if it's true, so lets not make any assumptions" in both cases.


I'm trying to get people on this forum to stop picking a position based on the "side" they are on, and rather pick a position because it's objectively true. And in the absence of objective truth, speculate equally in both directions. Weigh possibilities, without assuming conclusions. Why is this so hard for so many people to do? I have no problem at all speculating about the possibility of Trump colluding with the Russians. I have, in fact, done just that. The difference is that I don't assume it's true from the start. And I weigh that possibility against other possibilities (like that the Russians had nothing to do with the leak to wikileaks, and the evidence of Russian malware is just a red herring, or that the Russians did leak the info, but there was no collusion with the Trump campaign). I've even proposed alternative ways that the information could have been leaked, and weighed the likelihood of those ways against the one being claimed.

Guess what? I also have no problem speculating about possible ways the government might have spied on the Trump campaign. I've weighed possibilities that it may not have happened at all, or that it did happen but there were legitimate cause for the taps, or that it happened incidentally while tapping foreign parties (and even the potential that this could still be a violation of FISA), and yes, I've even examined the possibility of a completely off the books illegal spying operation that didn't involve FISA at all (cause, you know, that's still a possibility). I have no problem examining these possibilities, and don't feel the need to tie myself to any of them. That's what you don't get. When I say "It's possible that <alternative thing> could have happened", it's not because I believe it did, or want to believe it did, or even want to sway others into believing it did. I say that because I honestly enjoy the mental exercise of examining possibilities.

Obviously, this does not preclude me having an opinion about what I think is the most likely explanation, but that's just my opinion. Good for discussion, but I find it less than useful to berate someone merely for having a different opinion than you do. It's not like I tie my personal worth to whether a given position I've taken on an issue turns out to be true or not. It's usually just not that important.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2668 Mar 16 2017 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It was more about finding out whether or not there were conflicts of interest between his businesses and his policies, which these two pages really don't answer. Considering how little noise there's been from the White House over this leak as opposed to when anything else leaks and how little information you can actually get from these pages you could make an argument that this administration purposefully leaked it themselves to try to both quiet some noise left over from the elections and distract from the rest of the nonsense that comes out of the führer's mouth.


Clearly, you need to form together with other people to demand that he turn over his full long form tax forms. I'm sure you'll be safe from having a dismissive label applied to you, like... say... Formers. Or maybe Taxers? Taxformers, cause there's more than meets the eye?

Quote:
Or, while I may not be a fan and am totally trying to treat everyone equally but this totally answers everything perfectly and nothing else should be asked.


Or, I don't know... he's playing from the same rulebook that Obama was? He's literally using his tax forms in the same way that Obama did with his birth certificate. You get that right? And before you go all "OMG! I thought you treated people equally", let me remind you that I have consistently pointed out that the decision to not turn over his full birth certificate benefited Obama politically. He created a point of contention out of nothing, and allowed his surrogates to use that division to dismiss and deride all conservatives by mere association. And he got his political opponents caught up arguing about a piece of paper that he could have trivially turned over at any time, instead of a number of other things they could have been talking about, for 2 and a half years. That's not bad for just not doing something, isn't it?

In the interests of objectivity though, I will point out that the natural born citizenship requirement is actually in the constitution, while turning over tax forms is just a tradition. You can counter that with the idea that Trump could be in violation of the emoluments clause, which is at least also part of the constitution. However, while it's arguable that a long form birth certificate is necessary to prove natural born citizenship (especially under the conditions in Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth), the same can't be said about tax returns and potential violations of the emoluments clause. Tax returns generally do not have the kind of granularity you'd need to determine if, for example, a foreign hotel guest overpaid as some form of "gift" to Trump, or a hotel guest chose his hotel for their stay rather than another, effectively financially benefiting Trump along the way. Tax returns would merely contain the final tallies of expenses and revenues. You certainly would not find anything specific in terms of who stayed in which room, for how long, and what other choices they had, and whether they paid fair market value, or more, and thus whether there might be a violation.

If there comes to be sufficient call for an investigation, the more useful documents would be the actual business records at his hotels and resorts. While not as satisfying, nor tying in nicely to the whole "taxformer" thing (Ok, I'm kinda liking that term now), those would actually show whether Trump benefits financially from being in office. Uh. But even then, there's a question as to whether the courts would find that normal business profits is sufficient to violate the clause. The clause was written in response to lavish gift giving, where the obvious point of the gift was as a personal reward to someone in office in the US, for taking an action in said office that benefited the foreign power. There's a pretty huge gap between the king of France giving Franklin a portrait with a diamond and gold encrusted frame in appreciation of his work hammering out a treaty with France, and a relatively small increase in total business profits to Trumps hotels because maybe a slightly higher number of foreign parties decide to stay at his hotels.

There are likely other, better, ways to find that information. And I suspect Trump knows this, and also knows that if he gets pushed on it, he can easily push back. And yeah, that's a tactic I'm not too happy with, but I'm just trying to point out that this is by no means "new", or unique to Trump.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2669 Mar 16 2017 at 11:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Clearly, you need to form together with other people to demand that he turn over his full long form tax forms. I'm sure you'll be safe from having a dismissive label applied to you, like... say... Formers. Or maybe Taxers? Taxformers, cause there's more than meets the eye?

I dunno, the anti-Bush Truthers got a label attached to them. It's more about the insanity of your conspiracy theories than your partisan alignment.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2670 Mar 17 2017 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And before you go all "OMG! I thought you treated people equally",
If you believe preemptively admitting you're not going to treat this situation the same as another because of your bias will somehow stop me from mocking you about your bias then don't let me stop you.
gbaji wrote:
Clearly, you need to form together with other people to demand that he turn over his full long form tax forms.
So you're just going to accept it and not "ask questions" about it?

Edited, Mar 17th 2017 10:07am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2671 Mar 17 2017 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No need to ask questions, it'll be before the Supreme Court by December.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2672 Mar 17 2017 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
Oh sure, like the Druids can be impartial. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2673 Mar 17 2017 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
Okay, so there's no evidence because Obama used London's spies to wiretap 45's microwave. IT ALL MAKES SENSE.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2674 Mar 17 2017 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,338 posts
Is there no end to the Democrat's globalization nonsense? They shipped perfectly good intelligence jobs overseas and now we can't even keep Muslims out of the country anymore!

Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2675 Mar 17 2017 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,215 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Okay, so there's no evidence because Obama used London's spies to wiretap 45's microwave. IT ALL MAKES SENSE.


This is actually fairly plausible, based on FVEY documentation I've looked at. It's happened before to presidential candidates.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2676 Mar 17 2017 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Five Eyes? They opened one by us not too long ago. Burgers are okay but I think the fry portions get smaller each time I go.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2677 Mar 17 2017 at 12:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,338 posts
No it's Fives.

Don't you Star Wars?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2678 Mar 17 2017 at 1:06 PM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Burgers are okay but I think the fry portions get smaller each time I go.
Gotta put the recorded surveillance from the microwave on something.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2679 Mar 20 2017 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, the government is preparing to seize private land in Texas for Trump's wall. Hey, if you guys secede now, it'll be an act of war if the US government tries to take it!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2680 Mar 20 2017 at 7:47 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,575 posts
It's okay, Mexico will reimburse us and donate some land to build the wall on. It'll be on that check they'll cut us for the cost of construction.

Texans can just escape through the tunnels in Walmart.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2681 Mar 20 2017 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,320 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Texans can just escape through the tunnels in Walmart.


Those are gonna be some wide-ass tunnels.


cwutididther?

Edited, Mar 20th 2017 10:15am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2682 Mar 20 2017 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And before you go all "OMG! I thought you treated people equally",
If you believe preemptively admittingarguing you're not going to treat this situation the same as another because of your biasit's a different thing entirely will somehow stop me from mocking you about your bias then don't let me stop you.


FTFY.

I'm (correctly) predicting that you will ignore the differences I wrote about in the following paragraphs and declare them to be the same exact thing and thus conclude that the reason I'm treating them differently must be because of my own biases or something. And you respond to this by more or less proving my point for me. Great job!

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Clearly, you need to form together with other people to demand that he turn over his full long form tax forms.
So you're just going to accept it and not "ask questions" about it?


You seem to have failed to grasp that I don't have to agree or disagree with something in order to observe why someone might do such a thing. In both Obama's case with the birth certificate and Trump's case with the tax returns, they gain politically by *not* turning over the requested documentation. It allows them to frame those demanding the "long form <whatever>" as fringe nutters, and further frame anyone who agrees with them with the same broad brush. It just struck me how the "leak/release" of a single two page 1040 form (which has zero detail at all, absent the normal attached schedules) is nearly a perfect analogy to the release of Obama's certification of live birth (also providing no details in terms of how the data was generated), and that both serve the same purpose.

You're way too caught up in demanding people "pick a side" and argue for it. I'm not doing that here. I'm just pointing out the pattern of behavior and making observations about those behaviors and how they fit into a pattern. Trump quite obviously saw how effective Obama's refusal to release the full long form birth certificate was in terms of dismissing critics, and looks to be doing the same thing with his tax returns. How successful that'll be remains to be seen (and frankly isn't the point here). I just find the similarities to be too striking to ignore.

And yeah, for those paying attention, I'm making a similar observation with regard to the whole "Obama spied on my campaign!" claim. It's not about the claim (just as it's not about the tax forms). It's about putting the idea that an unsubstantiated claim should or should not receive weight front and center in the public's eye, and forcing people to think in that context. And frankly, it looks like it's working. I don't recall a single pundit stopping and making the specific point that the claims of collusion between the Russians and Trumps campaign was completely unsubstantiated until after Trump made his "Obama spied on me" tweets. Now? Pretty much every single discussion on that issue includes a demand for dismissal of Trump's claim and is countered by some form of "Ok, but doesn't the claim about Russian collusion in the election have just as little evidence?".

It's about framing the narrative. And as obnoxious as it is, it's working. I don't have to like it at all to observe what it is and what effect it's having. Again. I think you're too caught up in liking or disliking something. It's not really about that. At least, not for me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2683 Mar 20 2017 at 6:38 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It just struck me how the "leak/release" of a single two page 1040 form is nearly a perfect analogy to the release of Obama's certification of live birth, and that both serve the same purpose.

There is not a decades long precedent of presidential candidates releasing their birth certificate, whereas there is for the release of tax returns. People might disagree about what standards should be followed, but there isn't any denying that the standards here are different.
#2684 Mar 20 2017 at 8:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Allegory wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
It just struck me how the "leak/release" of a single two page 1040 form is nearly a perfect analogy to the release of Obama's certification of live birth, and that both serve the same purpose.

There is not a decades long precedent of presidential candidates releasing their birth certificate, whereas there is for the release of tax returns.


The requirement that a president must be a natural born citizen is actually written into the constitution and long predates the precedent of presidential candidates willingly choosing to show their tax returns (like by a couple hundred years).


Quote:
People might disagree about what standards should be followed, but there isn't any denying that the standards here are different.


Sure. In that one is a document which would help in establishing whether a firm legal requirement to hold the office has been met, while the other is a document that candidates have gotten into the habit of providing to the public as a means of increasing their electability by showing they have "nothing to hide". Failing to provide the former document casts doubt as to whether that legal requirement to hold the office has been met, and continues to cast that doubt after the election even if the candidate wins despite not providing it. Failing to provide the latter document may erode confidence in the candidate during the election, which may result in decreased voter support, but one can argue that if the candidate wins the election despite not providing it, that there's no further value or need for it. The *only* reason to show the tax returns is to gain voter support. There's no potential legal ramifications if he doesn't.

Releasing tax returns helps in meeting one of the criteria for holding the office (winning the vote). Releasing sufficient birth documentation helps in meeting an entirely different criteria for holding the office (being a natural born citizen). If one succeeds in winning the vote, he's met that criteria already. It's done. Winning the vote does not mean one has meet the natural born citizenship requirement though. So yeah, they are quite different in that respect.

Um... But having said all of that, I was simply pointing out that in both cases, the method of releasing a "partial document" seems almost designed to create a scenario where those demanding the document in question will not be satisfied with the release and will continue to demand it, while the candidate/president can claim he's already provided sufficient information, and thus dismiss those demands as unreasonable, and those continuing to demand it as fringe nutters. Again, it's not really about the document in question, it's about constructing an "I already did that, so people demanding that I do it are crazy and can be dismissed as so" narrative.

And in that way, they are quite similar.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2685 Mar 20 2017 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
gbaji wrote:
The requirement that a president must be a natural born citizen is actually written into the constitution and long predates the precedent of presidential candidates willingly choosing to show their tax returns (like by a couple hundred years).

It also predates the request that presidential candidates provide a copy of their birth certificate. Hem and haw aside, you can argue that Republicans requesting the birth certificate to generate political controversy is the same as the Democrats requesting a tax return for the same reasons. Or you can take the other side that Obama withholding his birth certificate was to generate political controversy the same as Trump withholding his tax return. I'm not convinced that's true, but it doesn't really matter.

One is a request for the same document others have provided, and one is an exception.

Edited, Mar 20th 2017 11:25pm by Allegory
#2686 Mar 20 2017 at 10:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,320 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The requirement that a president must be a natural born citizen is actually written into the constitution and long predates the precedent of presidential candidates willingly choosing to show their tax returns (like by a couple hundred years).

One is a request for the same document others have provided, and one is an exception.


This
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#2687 Mar 21 2017 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
gbaji wrote:
FTFY
Never a good sign when you start a post with a blatantly obvious lie.
gbaji wrote:
And you respond to this by more or less proving my point for me.
That your saying something stupid would get me to make fun of it? Congratulations on that prediction, Nostradumbass.
gbaji wrote:
You're way too caught up in demanding people "pick a side" and argue for it.
I'm not demanding you pick a side. It'd be redundant, you've long since picked one. I'm simply pointing it out, which in itself is redundant since everyone already knows. You're literally not fooling anyone. You want to keep lying about how you're unbiased and "apply rules equally," you go right ahead. I'll keep pointing it out when you don't. Rationalize, throw a tantrum. None of it really changes that your words and actions simply don't match up.

You can keep doing it and I'll keep pointing out (correctly) that you're being a hypocrite; You can stop being a hypocrite and save me the keystrokes; You can send a substantial payment to my paypal account monthly. Either way, all options ultimately benefit me.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2688 Mar 21 2017 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The requirement that a president must be a natural born citizen is actually written into the constitution and long predates the precedent of presidential candidates willingly choosing to show their tax returns (like by a couple hundred years).

It also predates the request that presidential candidates provide a copy of their birth certificate.


Requests for that specific document? Hard to say, given that birth certificates themselves didn't become essentially standard "must have" records until the creation of Social Security). Requests for proof of natural citizenship? Absolutely predates the request for tax forms. The first president to face such a challenge was Chester A. Author. Heck. A challenge was made regarding George Romney (who ran against NIxon in the 68 primary). Um... The whole tax form thing started *after* Nixon was president.

And there's a whole list of challenges in between those two as well.

Quote:
Hem and haw aside, you can argue that Republicans requesting the birth certificate to generate political controversy is the same as the Democrats requesting a tax return for the same reasons. Or you can take the other side that Obama withholding his birth certificate was to generate political controversy the same as Trump withholding his tax return. I'm not convinced that's true, but it doesn't really matter.


I think both sides make efforts to politicize these sorts of issues, in both directions. I just found it interesting the parallel between Obama releasing a short form certification, which did not contain the information that was being requested (the hospital and doctors signature), and Trump releasing (ok, leaking) a bare 1040, which also does not contain the information that was being requested (how much of his financial interests lie with foreign parties, etc). I'm sure it could all just be a coincidence, but man is it a nearly perfect one if it is.

Quote:
One is a request for the same document others have provided, and one is an exception.


And one isn't in any way related to any legal requirement to hold the office, while the other is.

The only thing exceptional about Obama's case (among all other challenges to natural born citizenship that I've heard about), was his unwillingness to provide as much evidence to support his natural born citizenship as possible. Everyone else who faced such a challenge, met it by proving as much documentation as existed to prove their status. Obama provided the minimum amount which he could claim was sufficient. The contrast between him and McCain (who also faced a challenge since he was born in the Panama Canal zone) is stark. While McCain never provided his birth certificate to the public, he didn't need to, since there was no doubt that he was born either on the military base, or in the zone itself. There was a law passed in 1937 conferring citizenship status to those born there to at least one US citizen (which applied to him). But since there was still question about whether a retroactive granting of citizenship qualified as "natural born citizen at birth", he also sought and obtained a Senate resolution declaring him to meet the natural born citizenship requirement to hold the office of president.

Obama was not unique or exceptional in that he faced questions about his qualification under that clause. His response (or lack thereof) to it was. There were a number of avenues he could have followed to at least reduce if not eliminate such questions. He chose to do "just enough" that he and his supporters could claim it was "proven", but not really enough to actually prove it, nor even to show that he'd done all he could to prove it. And yeah, I suspect that was intentional. And given the value of labeling people as "birthers", I think there's a pretty decent argument in support of that suspicion.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2689 Mar 21 2017 at 5:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
FTFY
Never a good sign when you start a post with a blatantly obvious lie.
gbaji wrote:
And you respond to this by more or less proving my point for me.
That your saying something stupid would get me to make fun of it? Congratulations on that prediction, Nostradumbass.
gbaji wrote:
You're way too caught up in demanding people "pick a side" and argue for it.
I'm not demanding you pick a side. It'd be redundant, you've long since picked one. I'm simply pointing it out, which in itself is redundant since everyone already knows. You're literally not fooling anyone. You want to keep lying about how you're unbiased and "apply rules equally," you go right ahead. I'll keep pointing it out when you don't. Rationalize, throw a tantrum. None of it really changes that your words and actions simply don't match up.

You can keep doing it and I'll keep pointing out (correctly) that you're being a hypocrite; You can stop being a hypocrite and save me the keystrokes; You can send a substantial payment to my paypal account monthly. Either way, all options ultimately benefit me.


Interesting

What's missing from your post? Even the most basic counter to my statement that the two situations in question are different and thus treating them differently is not hypocritical nor a sign of bias.

What's present in your post? Personal attacks.

When you attack the person and not the argument, you've basically already lost. Just saying.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2690 Mar 21 2017 at 5:42 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Gbaji wrote:
And one isn't in any way related to any legal requirement to hold the office, while the other is.

No, neither one is. Obama was never legally required to provide his birth certificate. This is perhaps the one way in which the situations are the same.
#2691 Mar 22 2017 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
gbaji wrote:
What's missing from your post?
Things can't really be missing if they're never meant to be there in the first place. Your wanting something to be there just so you can rattle off your biased bulletpoints isn't really all that important. Might as well complain that there isn't a rhinoceros.
gbaji wrote:
Personal attacks.
Grow some skin if you can't handle an accurate observation and summary of your behavior.
gbaji wrote:
When you attack the person and not the argument, you've basically already lost.
You can't (or simply won't) focus on the conversation without desperately trying to deviate from it, cry about your victimhood, and then judge who the "winner" is. Let's see if that pays off.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2692 Mar 22 2017 at 8:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
When you attack the person and not the argument, you've basically already lost. Just saying.

There's five people who post here. There is no "winning" or "losing", just wasting time and idle amusement. No one is thinking "Boy, I'm going to change Gbaji's mind!" or "The merits of my argument will be judged accordingly by the community!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2693 Mar 22 2017 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,215 posts
What about the 40 or so anonymous guests who read our every word?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#2694 Mar 22 2017 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
******
49,575 posts
Other than being so white he makes San Diego look like Alphabet City, Neil Gorsuch seems to be handling his confirmation hearing pretty well.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2695 Mar 22 2017 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,338 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
What about the 40 or so anonymous guests who read our every word?
It's hard to worry much about them. They're quietly attentive and hanging on every word regardless of what's said.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#2696 Mar 22 2017 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Allegory wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
And one isn't in any way related to any legal requirement to hold the office, while the other is.

No, neither one is. Obama was never legally required to provide his birth certificate.


Obama is legally required to be a natural born citizen. How do you imagine one proves that? Perhaps with a document? A document that tells us precisely where and when he was born, complete with doctor and witness signatures?

That would be a birth certificate, right? In the same way that a legal age requirement for purchasing alcohol generally requires some form of official document that proves your age. I'm not sure what your argument is here. He's legally required to meet a given status, but not legally required to provide the one document that can clearly prove that status has been met? That seems like spitting hairs to me.


Quote:
This is perhaps the one way in which the situations are the same.


Still not really the same though. There is zero legal requirement for any president to provide their tax returns. There is zero information that may be contained in a tax return that is relevant to any legal requirement to hold the office either.

The question is really easy:

Is there a legal requirement to be president that can be established by providing a given document? In the case of a birth certificate, the answer is yes. The natural born citizenship requirement can be established by use of a birth certificate.

So what legal requirement to be president can be established by providing a tax return? My answer is "none". But you're free to provide your own answer, and we can go from there. But so far, all I've seen is arguments consisting of "well, past presidents have done it". That's great. Past presidents have done lots of things to win voters over. But that's all the whole tax return thing is. A way to win over voters. Unless you can come up with a legal requirement that providing a tax return would help establish? Cause I'm just not seeing it. This is apples and oranges IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2697 Mar 22 2017 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,248 posts
The question here is "who, prior to Obama, was publicly asked to produce a long form birth certificate?"


I'll wait right here for the appropriate links to said past requests.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#2698 Mar 22 2017 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,248 posts
The second question being "since every candidate for 45 years has provided tax return data, why is Trump not?"
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#2699 Mar 22 2017 at 7:47 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,404 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
What about the 40 or so anonymous guests who read our every word?


They communicate with gbaji via private messages, remember?
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#2700 Mar 22 2017 at 7:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
The question here is "who, prior to Obama, was publicly asked to produce a long form birth certificate?"


I already answered this. While birth certificates did not become common documents until after the creation of Social Security, every single presidential candidate for which there was a question as to whether they met the natural born citizen requirement has had to face the need to prove their status. I already mentioned George Romney, who ran against Nixon in the GOP primary back in 68. He faced the same natural born citizen requirement questions that Obama faced. In his cases though, facts in his birth certificate were not the issue. He was born in Mexico. The legal question was whether he was a natural born citizen as a result of both of his parents being US citizens.

Quote:
George Romney himself was unequivocal.

"I am a natural born citizen. My parents were American citizens. I was a citizen at birth," he said, according to a typewritten statement found in his archives.

At one point, the Congressional Research Service - an arm of the Library of Congress that is supposed to provide authoritative but impartial research for elected members - advised that its analysts agreed with George Romney, according to a congressional source.

In a paper in November aimed at clarifying presidential eligibility, the Congressional Research Service declared that the practical, legal meaning of "natural born citizen" would "most likely include" not only anyone born on U.S. soil but anyone born overseas of at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen.


See how he actually went out and got an official determination of his status? See how Obama didn't do this, but instead just handwaved the issue away, put it before the court of public opinion, and in the process created a conflict over it?

There's your difference. Like I already said. Everyone else who has faced this issue in that past (and there's been a number of them) has done everything they could to prove their eligibility for the office. Obama did the exact opposite. He seemed to deliberately and unnecessarily want to create questions about his legal status.

Quote:
I'll wait right here for the appropriate links to said past requests.


You are missing the forest for the freaking trees. It's not about the specific document. It's about the requirement to prove that one is a natural born citizen. In Obama's case, this would best be done by providing his long form birth certificate. Just because that precise document isn't required in every case (like with Romney and McCain), does not mean that in Obama's case, it's not needed.

I mentioned Chester Arthur earlier. He, like Obama, never provided his birth certificate. Of course, in his case, he had a great excuse. He was born in 1829, and the state of Vermont didn't start keeping birth records until 1957 (and neither did the town he was born in). Obama did not have that excuse. He had a long form birth certificate, on file, in the state of Hawaii records, the entire time. He could have trivially provided them. He chose not to.

And just for completeness sake, here's a guy who did more research on this than I'm willing to do.

Note that he's only looking at the last 50 years or so. You'll also note how a couple presidents have birth certificates filled out well after their births. That's because of the whole "no need for one until Social Security came along". Well, and likely employment for the first time that required such a thing. Point being that it's not like this is such a hard thing to do. Obama just made it so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2701 Mar 22 2017 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,248 posts
gbaji wrote:
See how he actually went out and got an official determination of his status?


Please link a copy of his long form birth certificate.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 94 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (94)