Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

California governor signs bill on presidential tax returns

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by fastsix, Jul 30, 2019.

  1. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    9,234
    1,017
    693
    Apr 8, 2007
    You completely missed my point. I wasn't saying that the requirements are analogous. I was saying that in 2008 Obama along with the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, a Republican appointed by a Republican governor by the way, laid to rest the issue of his birth. Rationally, there was absolutely no doubt that Obama was a natural born US citizen and as such was constitutionally eligible for the office of president. Because he provided a copy of the Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth as proof rather than his original long form birth certificate should have been irrelevant since the latter is an official document considered legal proof of birth by virtually every government agency. Only in the warped minds of some conspiracy theorists or maybe among some right wing flame throwers who actually knew better would it have been considered inadequate. As far as release of tax returns is concerned, although it's not a constitutional requirement, it's become a norm for every presidential candidate. I tend to agree that California may have gone a step too far and I would also agree that Trump's legal attempt to conceal his finances shouldn't keep him off the ballot.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
  2. fredsanford

    fredsanford GC Hall of Fame

    10,342
    370
    598
    Dec 1, 2008
    Not to mention that GWB’s State Department cleared Obama as a citizen.
     
  3. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Hall of Fame

    1,191
    221
    228
    Aug 16, 2009
    The thing is, at face value it's not targeting an individual or a party. It applies to an aspect of running that is non-partisan and applies to literally everyone. It would have applied to Jerry Brown who never released his taxes either. So it is a bill that has partisan origins, but actually has a greater public benefit. The multi-state popular vote compact is partisan in origin, but only because one apolitical factor has favored one side in recent years. It is in reality an apolitical (conglomerate) law in that it would favor the person who wins regardless of party. Sometimes changes need to be made. Removing parts of the filibuster helped Democrats initially (I guess), but helped Republicans more since the changes were made.

    I won't get into the minutiae of the other executive precedents that have unfortunately been set in the last 2.75 years, but I will draw attention to their existence.


    That's partisanship, and that is not what the California law (or is it a "bill" while still in judicial limbo?) does. Abortion is clearly a partisan issue currently and would face an expedited series of appeals if your hypothetical came to be. Well, maybe. We have all sorts of laws in southern states and midwest strongholds that like to purge voter rolls, disenfranchise minority voters, and still try to gerrymander through HBCUs. I think the slippery slope argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the way we will actually feel about things in the future.
     
  4. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,271
    1,261
    613
    Sep 14, 2008
    So abortion is a partisan issue, but tax returns that have not been an issue at all until Trump ran for president isn't? Ok. Ultimately the question is whether you want to leave it up to the voters to decide whether the candidate's finances are a big deal or not or start having state legislatures, who view things through a partisan lens, start filtering the choices available to you. So do you believe in democracy and that electoral choices should be in the hands of the people or do you believe it should be in the hands of the California state legislature? It's a no-brainer IMO.

    I'm not sure what public benefit you really get from seeing the returns other than maybe finding out he is inflating his wealth claims. It's likely Mueller had access to them and nothing came of it. They aren't going to put anything incriminating in the documents when they prepare them. So what does it tell you?
     
  5. nolancarey

    nolancarey GC Hall of Fame

    1,191
    221
    228
    Aug 16, 2009
    Yes. If you had politicians answer declare whether they will follow such and such section of the constitution, well, that would be nonpartisan too ... even if it was related to the 2nd amendment. At least depending on the wording.

    Ultimately, I feel as though candidates should show as much as they can ... not just the minimum of legal obligations. If Bill Weld killed a kid while he was in juvie, I think I'd like to know. If Kamala Harris had a deferred prosecution charge for pot, I'd like to know. Even if Kavanaugh had a sexual indiscretion in his youth, I'd like to know ... These things are not immediately disqualifying, but we ask our public leaders to own up to them and detail how they have learned and become better people. .............. So, what's the big deal with knowing about taxes when we've known about each president's taxes since Nixon?

    If that's all it is, fine! Boo hoo, poor president trump.

    When documents have been subpoenaed and legislation forces future nominees or candidates to show ... then so what? We're all on equal footing.
     
  6. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 GC Hall of Fame

    64,980
    10,253
    2,373
    Apr 3, 2007
    LMFAO! Yeah, the socialist state of California trying to run the nation... again. :eek:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    26,147
    2,701
    1,243
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    Again. One email. One phone call. One tweet. Problem solved. So easy a caveman can do it.

    Unless....
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. beanfield

    beanfield GC Legend

    693
    29
    168
    Aug 1, 2009
    I think you do
     
  9. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    9,234
    1,017
    693
    Apr 8, 2007
    Interestingly California is one of the states in which its residents pay more in taxes into the federal treasury than they receive in benefits from the federal government. In fact, contrary to the narrative, the so called "red" states who tend to vote Republican in presidential elections are more likely to be net "takers" from the federal government than the blue states.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    831
    268
    323
    Jun 14, 2014
    I largely agree with your point about letting the voters decide, but Trump's tax returns don't need to show criminality to be incriminating politically. Hillary's certainly didn't.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. citygator

    citygator Premium Member

    3,936
    1,172
    618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    Ignorance is astounding. Vacationed in San Fran for a week. Beautiful. Same big city issues they have in Dallas, Houston, and the ATL.

    My conservative sister-in-law thinks the state is a crap hole cuz of right wing memes. Righties are generally uninformed.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. citygator

    citygator Premium Member

    3,936
    1,172
    618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    Facts don’t matter. What matters is memes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. gatorpika

    gatorpika Premium Member

    7,271
    1,261
    613
    Sep 14, 2008
    Agree, but when you go from potentially showing criminal activity to merely embarrassing information, then the whole public interest argument loses credibility IMO. If you require the candidate to produce tax returns, then what about school records and papers? What about whatever personal emails/texts you have that have not yet been wiped with a cloth? Or a requirement to declare your last 5 girlfriends so they can interview them to see if you are a rapey kind of dude? The governor of Puerto Rico was recently thrown out based on the contents of leaked texts he sent and received, so that should at least be of similar public interest to tax returns if you follow the other poster's argument. But, I would guess there is a privacy line in there somewhere. If we think that all our politicians should be of pure mind and heart with nothing negative in their paper trail, then we aren't going to have many people running and those we do find likely won't be the best people for the job.
     
  14. grumpygator77

    grumpygator77 GC Legend

    597
    152
    258
    Nov 26, 2017
    I guess because they see the head guy in the Oval Office disregard anything he sees fit with nobody seemingly caring one iota. So why not?
     
  15. altalias

    altalias GC Legend

    843
    56
    303
    Aug 13, 2008
    Cruz, Rubio and Jeb released their tax records. I assume they all did. Jeb thought like you (I assume) and wanted create a contrast by releasing 33 years of his tax records. It would appear no one cares.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. beanfield

    beanfield GC Legend

    693
    29
    168
    Aug 1, 2009
    your right, it is astounding..
     
  17. homer

    homer GC Legend

    882
    310
    348
    Nov 2, 2015
    So Obama never released an actual birth certificate?

    Wonder why?
     
  18. gatorknights

    gatorknights GC Hall of Fame

    26,147
    2,701
    1,243
    Apr 8, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    Because he was born in Kenya and is a Muslim, everybody knows that. :)
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    9,234
    1,017
    693
    Apr 8, 2007
    He actually did release it, albeit not until 2011. Here is a copy of his actual birth certificate although the computerized form that was released in 2008 is considered a legal document for virtually every purpose. Turns out both forms are labeled "Certificate of Live Birth".
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  20. homer

    homer GC Legend

    882
    310
    348
    Nov 2, 2015
    That’s what I thought I read somewhere.