Boomers gen x and the rich fucked us over with debt they should take more responsibility

Except if trump doesn't want to disclose his taxes, he doesnt have to try to become president. We have good reasons for wanting him to submit, but all you have are some vague ideas of privacy and free speech. To be clear, your rationale is only an analogy for why he shouldn't have to submit them, cause neither privacy or free speech laws would prevent us from making submission of taxes a requirement

Except if trump doesn't want to disclose his taxes, he doesnt have to try to become president. We have good reasons for wanting him to submit, but all you have are some vague ideas of privacy and free speech. To be clear, your rationale is only an analogy for why he shouldn't have to submit them, cause neither privacy or free speech laws would prevent us from making submission of taxes a requirement

You are confusing what voters may demand with what government may compel. You should be perfectly free to refuse to vote for a candidate who won't release his taxes. That doesn't establish government authority to condition access to the presidency on surrendering private records. ‘He doesn't have to run’ is not a limiting principle. It could justify compelled disclosure of other stuff like medical records, school records, family finances or virtually anything else legislators claim voters would find useful. Next you will say government has no incentive to weaponize that information in bad faith. Good luck with that. Your american laws and Constitution are based on innocent until proven guilty for this very reason.

It's a system that only works with a moral society. The fact that you and others are pushing for a wholly immoral society where guilt is presumed before innocence shows the direction your country is headed.

The problem isn't Trump, MAGA, or TDS signalling. It's establishing a legal presumption that seeking public office requires you to prove your innocence by surrendering private records to the government. Once you normalize that principle, every lawful detail uncovered can be selectively investigated, leaked, or politically weaponized through legitimate channels. Government should need a particularized justification to invade someone's privacy; citizens shouldn't have to surrender privacy to prove there's nothing there. And a country should NEVER legitimize the weaponization of government against detractors.

Trump is profiting from the presidency in the billions. He will be impeached as soon as the democrats take over the house.

Boomers basically need to be liquidated, their property confiscated and redistributed, then they can be put onto giant carnival cruise ships which will be scuttled off the coast of Sentinel Island. The Boomers will either conquer the island and form a boomertopia with that can-do attitude and work ethic that they're always touting, or they can further cement the idea in the minds of the Sentinelese that the rest of the world has nothing to offer and fertilize the reefs.

The last baby boomers did a great job in building America to be the wealthiest nation on earth.

Yes, but you must recall that Democrats [granted, not all, but enough] voted with Republicans to pass legislation allowing tax-exempt and tax-deferred investments that add to the 5%'s annual income, which is not the same as their net worth. It ususally akes two to tango, even to political music.

Okay… so democrats suck too, what’s your point?

Democrats are Americans too. It’s the American dream gone sour.

neither privacy or free speech laws would prevent us from making submission of taxes a requirement

That's correct. So, have you written to your Congressman and Senators to write/sponsor legislation to insist presidential candidates submit tax returns to qualify a campaign for president?

It isn't going to happen any too soon without that effort on your part, and, otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind.

Okay… so democrats suck too, what’s your point?

Uhhh, that.

Perhaps they should also sit an IQ test and a submit an appropriate and coherent 100,000 word written dissertation entitled...Why I would make a good President, who will work tirelessly, not only for the good of All Americans, but also for the good of all mankind.

Kamala Harris would get the job.

—> Okay… so democrats suck too, what’s your point?

Uhhh, that.

Then you have no point at all.

*Some* democrats voted *with* republicans to do [Bad thing X], therefore democrats and republicans are equally bad.

Logic fail.

Logic fail.

How do you arrive at that conclusion when fact tells us that a few rotten apples, potatoes, or lamb chops in a barrel will ultimately spoil the barrel unless the rot is removed and the barrel cleansed?

That's not philosophy as much as it is proven science, although correct philosophy [not all is] corroborates science.

At 500 words per page in standard 12-point font [standard measure], 100k words is a 200-page dissertation no one will read.

Depend on what is being written.

How do you arrive at that conclusion

By applying what I learned in 4th grade.

If 9 out of 10 people in Group A do something bad, and 2 out of 10 people in Group B do something bad, then Group A is worse.

Logic 101.

It also prove group A is more united

By applying what I learned in 4th grade.

Did 4th grade tell you who determined good and bad for groups A and B?

Did they tell you by which factors good and bad were detrermined?

Did they tell you in 4th grade A and B were given the same good/bad parameters?

I'll wager 4th grade did not offer those details.

And some, today, have PhDs and still are confused. It's been made worse because now there are more groups.

Quite.

Well the job, should necessitate a High IQ and an above average level of eloquence.

So Trump certainly wouldn't pass the written and oral exam.

But I not sure that Kamala would either.

But what is important in the US, is the talking drivel and overall corruption test...Where Trump scores way above average.

Trump’s IQ test involved identifying a tiger, elephant and giraffe.

Did 4th grade tell you who determined good and bad for groups A and B? 

The question of how “bad” was determined is irrelevant within a conversation where both parties except the premise that X is bad.

Your point was that democrats suck *too*, so the background crap you’re trying to use to wiggle out of the conversation is irrelevant.

A used car salesman can pass a test of eloquence.

The question of how “bad” was determined is irrelevant within a conversation where both parties except the premise that X is bad.

Thanks, but as just told you elsewhere, I'll respond, thanks, to whatever I think deserves response. My respionse is oiften filtered througth a legal perspective, which does address the variable levels of "good" and "bad." Sorry if that confuses you by a myriad of grays in your black and white.

Well, there's eloquence and there's drivel and I suppose that there is also eloquent drivel.

But hey, if it comes with a red hat, 50% of Americans don't notice the difference anyway.

Yes, Trump was elected twice because of his IQ test will America was struggling with kangaroos.

Red hats are the optional packet. There is always a Blue Hat car waiting in the back lot.

As long as you have the eloquence to convince your target that they are super smart. And the Eloquence to convince your target the lot across the street is so much worse and not exactly the same.

And the Eloquence to convince them to go deep into debt for it because they "deserve" the car or have a right to it. That's how you get em good.

My respionse is oiften filtered througth a legal perspective, which does address the variable levels of "good" and "bad." Sorry if that confuses you by a myriad of grays in your black and white.

This is so hilarious.

This dispute began when I pointed out something egregious about republicans to which you made the point that “democrats suck too”, and by that you simply meant “there’s bad on both sides and therefore they’re effectively the same” totally ignoring the fact that one of three groups is meaningfully worse than the other.

And now, without any substantive clarifications whatsoever, all of a sudden you’re the one who’s being nuanced and I’m the one confused because everything’s not black or white.

When I talk about people a this site being unserious, this is exactly what I’m talking about.

I'm so glad you're amused