Poll- Do you care about Trump's taxes?

SeamusFX

Trump says public doesn't care 'at all' about his taxes.

Well maybe the stupid people that voted for him don't care about his taxes, but they're the same people that would jump off a bridge if he asked them. So please respond if you care about his taxes or not and also indicate if you are a Trump supporter or not.

If Trump is to be president (so scary), he needs to be president for all the people, but just the 46% that voted for him and that was just 26% of eligible voters.

I want to see his Taxes, the American people need to know the truth about his finances and yes, I did not and never would or could vote for a habitual liar like Trump!

Rightwing

SeamusFX wrote: »

Trump says public doesn't care 'at all' about his taxes.

Well maybe the stupid people that voted for him don't care about his taxes, but they're the same people that would jump off a bridge if he asked them. So please respond if you care about his taxes or not and also indicate if you are a Trump supporter or not.

If Trump is to be president (so scary), he needs to be president for all the people, but just the 46% that voted for him and that was just 26% of eligible voters.

I want to see his Taxes, the American people need to know the truth about his finances and yes, I did not and never would or could vote for a habitual liar like Trump!

I don't see any poll here.
And no, I don't care about his taxes, or anyone's for that matter, smart people try to limit their taxes. Why waste your money on big Governments?

SeamusFX

Rightwing wrote: »

I don't see any poll here.
And no, I don't care about his taxes, or anyone's for that matter, smart people try to limit their taxes. Why waste your money on big Governments?

I was just asking people to state if they wanted to see his tax returns! People try to pay as little in taxes as possible, within the law, but the people still have a right to see his returns, since all other Presidents and candidates have released them. You are obviously a Trump supporter going by your user name "Rightwing", so therefore you aren't as smart as you think you are. Sorry, but the truth hurts!

Clarebelly

SeamusFX wrote: »

You are obviously a Trump supporter going by your user name "Rightwing", so therefore you aren't as smart as you think you are. Sorry, but the truth hurts!

Yep and his location under his username says...... Location: The Rugby Expert
So maybe he plays on the "Rightwing".
It might be you who "aren't as smart as you think you are".

Yuk, yuk.

Rightwing

Clarebelly wrote: »

Yep and his location under his username says...... Location: The Rugby Expert
So maybe he plays on the "Rightwing".
It might be you who "aren't as smart as you think you are".

Yuk, yuk.

Correct.

Also, I'm no Trump supporter, but not one of these posters like Seamus who is soiling his trousers at the 'scary' prospect of Trump.

SeamusFX

Rightwing wrote: »

Correct.

Also, I'm no Trump supporter, but not one of these posters like Seamus who is soiling his trousers at the 'scary' prospect of Trump.

I think the username was abbreviated and should actually read - Rightwing-Nutjob and despite your claims, you are a Trump supporter, because with a virus like Trump, you are either with him or against him!

johnnyskeleton

SeamusFX wrote: »

I think the username was abbreviated and should actually read - Rightwing-Nutjob and despite your claims, you are a Trump supporter, because with a virus like Trump, you are either with him or against him!

SeamusFX wrote: »

I was just asking people to state if they wanted to see his tax returns! People try to pay as little in taxes as possible, within the law, but the people still have a right to see his returns, since all other Presidents and candidates have released them. You are obviously a Trump supporter going by your user name "Rightwing", so therefore you aren't as smart as you think you are. Sorry, but the truth hurts!

Mod note:

Since you didn't learn from this morning's infraction for personal abuse, please take two days away from the forum. If you want to come back after that, please read the charter and learn to be civil.

Clarebelly wrote: »

It might be you who "aren't as smart as you think you are".

Yuk, yuk.

Rightwing wrote: »

Correct.

Also, I'm no Trump supporter, but not one of these posters like Seamus who is soiling his trousers at the 'scary' prospect of Trump.

Mod note:

Please don't respond to personal abuse in thread and use the report post function in future.

I'm going to leave the thread open because maybe there is some argument about whether his tax affairs are relevant to his becoming president. However, if it goes the way I expect it might it will be closed.

Billy86

Rightwing wrote: »

Why waste your money on big Governments?

So they can help bail you out when you go bankrupt 4+ times, for a start.

Mr.Micro

To my mind Trump not declaring his taxes undermines the system. He can't complain then if millions of others follow his example and leave the treasury short. Perhaps other things he does/ did as well will be acceptable? Racism, sexism, bigotry, rudeness, greed, intolerance, the list goes on.

Bozacke

Rightwing wrote: »

Correct.

Also, I'm no Trump supporter, but not one of these posters like Seamus who is soiling his trousers at the 'scary' prospect of Trump.

Rightwing agenda, the only thing you got right was the "'scary' prospect of Trump", if a Trump presidency doesn't scare you, then you haven't been paying attention!

Yes, Trump has a responsibility to show his taxes, But he won't because he's a fraud. He promised he'd release his taxes, but he hasn't and he won't because he has sooooo much to hide.

Those who voted for Trump have a lot to answer for, if they can't see Trump for the true conman he is, they are too blinded by their own Rightwing agenda and it's really just so sad!

Amerika

If it was so danged important for a candidate or president to release his/her tax returns to the public, you'd think we would have made it a law by now.

Bozacke

Amerika wrote: »

If it was so danged important for a candidate or president to release his/her tax returns to the public, you'd think we would have made it a law by now.

It never had to be a law, because prior to slime ball Trump, every other president and candidate was honorable to release their taxes!! But yes, if the people are going to elect low-lifes like Trump, the laws will need to be changed!

Amerika

Bozacke wrote: »

It never had to be a law, because prior to slime ball Trump, every other president and candidate was honorable to release their taxes!! But yes, if the people are going to elect low-lifes like Trump, the laws will need to be changed!

No, it has only been going on since around 1970, and they were career politicians. You're allowed your opinion, but not your history. Things were definitely different this election. I think if the democrats had there way, only career politicians would be allowed to become president, much to our demise. And if it is now an issue perhaps a law will be created for candidates to release them, along with their birth certificates, perhaps.

Billy86

Bozacke wrote: »

It never had to be a law, because prior to slime ball Trump, every other president and candidate was honorable to release their taxes!! But yes, if the people are going to elect low-lifes like Trump, the laws will need to be changed!

Interesting story that came out today...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/bills-require-presidential-candidates-release-tax-returns-44727839

Lawmakers in Hawaii and several other states want to prevent presidential candidates from appearing on their states' ballots unless the candidates release their tax returns.

They're responding to President-elect Donald Trump's decision to not release his tax returns during the presidential campaign, breaking decades of precedent.

The Hawaii bill would require candidates to release five years of federal and state tax returns to qualify for the ballot, state Rep. Chris Lee said Wednesday. Similar proposals are circulating in California, Massachusetts, New Mexico and the District of Columbia.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You just kind of showed the opposite of what you meant to, since he lost the popular vote by millions. Sure, the EC system means he still won by their rules and I don't have any problem with that, but by your logic this proves the majority of voting Americans do care about his taxes.

Plenty of educated people voted for Trump too, believe it or not: 54 percent of white male college graduates voted for him, as did 45 percent of white female college graduates.

You conveniently left something out, I've added it for you. Would be interesting to see the breakdown of all college educated voters, though Clinton certainly dominated the more educated areas of the country while Trump dominated in the least educated areas - http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You see, I already covered that in the post you responded to and made a point of it because it was predictable this would be your response. The fact is majority of voting Americans voted for Clinton - but I don't for a moment dispute that the EC system was there long before and so Trump won the election. That's fine. But by your own logic it clearly means that the majority of the voting public do have an issue with his nondisclosure of tax returns, despite his claims that they don't.

Post it up if you have it. In any case, with Trump attracting roughly half of all college-educated white voters, it's really tedious to hear people prattling on as if his supporters are all ignorant rednecks. It simply isn't true.

I'm not the on making claim about college voters, and trying to misrepresent white college graduates as all college graduates.

Manic Moran

I don't care.

The IRS seems to care, as they're doing the audits. Given that the US's tax system is stupidly complicated, I can barely do my own taxes, and likely cannot understand the various rules applicable to a multi-million dollar portfolio, I don't know what I'd do with them anyway. If Trump's done something wrong, I presume the IRS will figure it out. If he hasn't done anything wrong, I presume the IRS will not announce anything odd.

Aside from the fact that the popular vote statement is akin to saying that a someone got the highest jump in a long-jump competition, I'd also observe that if one discounts California, the popular vote of the remaining 49 States went for Trump. Goes to show just how disproportionate California is.

MadYaker

Pardon my ignorance here but what information exactly would be present in trump's tax returns? Is it purely the amount of tax he has paid over the course of his life and nothing else? If so what other info could be extrapolated from that?

I'm sure he's paid a scandalously low amount of tax compared to his wealth and income, doubt anyone would be surprised by such a revelation.

I'd be more interested in finding out who he or the Trump corporation owes money to.

Billy86

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't care.

The IRS seems to care, as they're doing the audits. Given that the US's tax system is stupidly complicated, I can barely do my own taxes, and likely cannot understand the various rules applicable to a multi-million dollar portfolio, I don't know what I'd do with them anyway. If Trump's done something wrong, I presume the IRS will figure it out. If he hasn't done anything wrong, I presume the IRS will not announce anything odd.

Aside from the fact that the popular vote statement is akin to saying that a someone got the highest jump in a long-jump competition, I'd also observe that if one discounts California, the popular vote of the remaining 49 States went for Trump. Goes to show just how disproportionate California is.

When talking about the US population as a whole I needs of public opinion, its a folly to say the popular vote is irrelevant. The poster said the election result showed how the public felt, and if that is to be the case then all it showed is that the US public did care. The fact that some states have EC votes disproportionate to their populations doesn't change that.

And trying to say "if you take out 12% of the US the results would have been different" is again, an utter folly. I'm sure of you take Dublin or London out of Irish or UK votes, the results of many votes would look a lot different too, but the thing is that doesn't actually mean anything unless you're of the mindset that someone's opinion should count for less if they are from a certain postal code, so what's the point?

Jimoslimos

Manic Moran wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your analogy is poor. It's more akin to the second longest jumper (in a long-jump competition) winning gold because he/she had more successful jumps than the longest jumper.

Even with California excluded Clinton still wins the popular vote, but sure while we're at it why not exclude Texas or the Midwest?

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Does that make it right though? Or is Trumps only responsibility to those who voted for him?

Post it up if you have it. In any case, with Trump attracting roughly half of all college-educated white voters, it's really tedious to hear people prattling on as if his supporters are all ignorant rednecks. It simply isn't true.

Stop backpedalling. You got caught out misrepresenting statistics.

Manic Moran

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Your analogy is poor. It's more akin to the second longest jumper (in a long-jump competition) winning gold because he/she had more successful jumps than the longest jumper.

No, that makes less sense, because the known objective of a long jump contest is to make the longest jump. Anything else is missing the point.

Even with California excluded Clinton still wins the popular vote

I sit corrected. Must have been using old figures. Does become dramatically closer, though.

but sure while we're at it why not exclude Texas or the Midwest?

A lot fewer votes in Texas to consider on the moral question, both electoral and popular.

rossie1977

MadYaker wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance here but what information exactly would be present in trump's tax returns? Is it purely the amount of tax he has paid over the course of his life and nothing else? If so what other info could be extrapolated from that?

I'm sure he's paid a scandalously low amount of tax compared to his wealth and income, doubt anyone would be surprised by such a revelation.

I'd be more interested in finding out who he or the Trump corporation owes money to.

No tax returns would include how much income you earned, where your money is invested and how much you paid in state and federal taxes

the_pen_turner

once the irs is happy i dont see why it is anybodys business

rich people can find legal ways to reduce their tax bill

Jimoslimos

MadYaker wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance here but what information exactly would be present in trump's tax returns? Is it purely the amount of tax he has paid over the course of his life and nothing else? If so what other info could be extrapolated from that?

I'm sure he's paid a scandalously low amount of tax compared to his wealth and income, doubt anyone would be surprised by such a revelation.

I'd be more interested in finding out who he or the Trump corporation owes money to.

Sources of income would be the big one I guess. Of course he doesn't legally have to disclose that on a tax return but that in itself would be a massive red flag.

Jimoslimos

the_pen_turner wrote: »

once the irs is happy i dont see why it is anybodys business

In an ideal world, yes, but we don't live in an ideal world. Instead we live in a world where people are to a greater or lesser degree compromised by money. Recognising this and taking all appropriate steps to minimise conflicts of interest is a good thing, no?

The IRS aren't concerned by the ethics of Trump's income. He could have received a $1 trillion payment for a gold plated toilet in the Kremlin paid for by Mr P. Utin, but as long as the tax is in order all is good.

Rightwing

Few things here people should be aware of:

It was some of Trump's creditors who went 'bankrupt'. Going bankrupt in America is entirely different to going bust here. It's more strategic. Chapter 11 & 13 bankruptcy. Read it.

The popular vote is an argument thrown out my numpties. You play the game by the rules. A bit like Ireland would have beaten in France in the Euros for the most high balls in the air. Can you believe that?.....we would have won, we would have beaten France, wow, so unfair, well guess what, France may have changed their style if it was high balls that was the key determinant. Trump may also have campaigned more in places like California, changed his rhetoric in such places. The liberals didn't think he could win in Florida, too many Latinos/wealthy educated people/liberals etc there.

Billy86

Rightwing wrote: »

Few things here people should be aware of:

It was some of Trump's creditors who went 'bankrupt'. Going bankrupt in America is entirely different to going bust here. It's more strategic. Chapter 11 & 13 bankruptcy. Read it.

You're trying to claim it was some of his creditors that claimed bankruptcy and not him... so why is it Trump that keeps having to give up his own personal stakes in these companies?

Bankruptcy 1: The Trump Taj Mahal, 1991
The first bankruptcy associated with Trump was perhaps the most significant in terms of his personal finances, according to news reports at the time. He funded the construction of the $1 billion Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, which opened in 1990. By 1991, the casino was nearly $3 billion in debt, while Trump had racked up nearly $900 million in personal liabilities, so the business decided to file for Chapter 11 reorganization, according to the New York Times. As a result, Trump gave up half his personal stake in the casino and sold his yacht and airline, according to the Washington Post.

Bankruptcy 2: Trump Plaza Hotel, 1992
Trump acquired the Plaza Hotel in New York for $390 million in 1988. By 1992, the hotel had accumulated $550 million in debt. As a result of the bankruptcy, in exchange for easier terms on which to pay off the debts, Trump relinquished a 49 percent stake in the Plaza to a total of six lenders, according to ABC News. Trump remained the hotel’s CEO, but it was merely a gesture -- he didn’t earn a salary and had no say in the hotel’s day-to-day operations, according to the New York Times.

Bankruptcy 3: Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts, 2004
Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004 when his casinos -- including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza casinos in Atlantic City and a riverboat casino in Indiana -- had accrued an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to the Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he was still the company’s largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Trump told the Associated Press at the time that the company represented less than 1 percent of his net worth.

Bankruptcy 4: Trump Entertainment Resorts, 2009
Trump Entertainment Resorts -- formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts -- was hit hard by the 2008 economic recession and missed a $53.1 million bond interest payment in December 2008, according to ABC News. After debating with the company’s board of directors, Trump resigned as the company’s chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trump’s name in licensing.

The popular vote is an argument thrown out my numpties. You play the game by the rules. A bit like Ireland would have beaten in France in the Euros for the most high balls in the air. Can you believe that?.....we would have won, we would have beaten France, wow, so unfair, well guess what, France may have changed their style if it was high balls that was the key determinant. Trump may also have campaigned more in places like California, changed his rhetoric in such places. The liberals didn't think he could win in Florida, too many Latinos/wealthy educated people/liberals etc there.

Nobody in here is arguing that the popular vote should have decided the election, and this has been repeatedly and explicitly made clear, so that's a straw man. But what is being argued is that if the majority of people voted for Clinton or against Trump, then the majority of people are interested in Trump's taxes (based off the assertion from Permabear that Trump winning the election meant they didn't). Someone's actual vote from California, Texas or NY (each with around 1 EC vote per 500,000 people) might be deemed less valuable than someone's in Wyoming or North/South Dakota (1 EC vote per 140-200,000 people) due to the rules which have been in place for a long, long time, but that doesn't mean they have less of an opinion when it comes to the President Elect's tax returns.

Rightwing

Billy86 wrote: »

You're trying to claim it was some of his creditors that claimed bankruptcy and not him... so why is it Trump that keeps having to give up his own personal stakes in these companies?

Bankruptcy 1: The Trump Taj Mahal, 1991
The first bankruptcy associated with Trump was perhaps the most significant in terms of his personal finances, according to news reports at the time. He funded the construction of the $1 billion Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, which opened in 1990. By 1991, the casino was nearly $3 billion in debt, while Trump had racked up nearly $900 million in personal liabilities, so the business decided to file for Chapter 11 reorganization, according to the New York Times. As a result, Trump gave up half his personal stake in the casino and sold his yacht and airline, according to the Washington Post.

Bankruptcy 2: Trump Plaza Hotel, 1992
Trump acquired the Plaza Hotel in New York for $390 million in 1988. By 1992, the hotel had accumulated $550 million in debt. As a result of the bankruptcy, in exchange for easier terms on which to pay off the debts, Trump relinquished a 49 percent stake in the Plaza to a total of six lenders, according to ABC News. Trump remained the hotel’s CEO, but it was merely a gesture -- he didn’t earn a salary and had no say in the hotel’s day-to-day operations, according to the New York Times.

Bankruptcy 3: Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts, 2004
Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004 when his casinos -- including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza casinos in Atlantic City and a riverboat casino in Indiana -- had accrued an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to the Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he was still the company’s largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Trump told the Associated Press at the time that the company represented less than 1 percent of his net worth.

Bankruptcy 4: Trump Entertainment Resorts, 2009
Trump Entertainment Resorts -- formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts -- was hit hard by the 2008 economic recession and missed a $53.1 million bond interest payment in December 2008, according to ABC News. After debating with the company’s board of directors, Trump resigned as the company’s chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trump’s name in licensing.


Nobody in here is arguing that the popular vote should have decided the election, and this has been repeatedly and explicitly made clear, so that's a straw man. But what is being argued is that if the majority of people voted for Clinton or against Trump, then the majority of people are interested in Trump's taxes (based off the assertion from Permabear that Trump winning the election meant they didn't). Someone's actual vote from California, Texas or NY (each with around 1 EC vote per 500,000 people) might be deemed less valuable than someone's in Wyoming or North/South Dakota (1 EC vote per 140-200,000 people) due to the rules which have been in place for a long, long time, but that doesn't mean they have less of an opinion when it comes to the President Elect's tax returns.

No, I'm claiming that it is more important for Trump's creditors to carry out due diligence than it is for Trump to acquire casinos with someone elses money. He will wipe them out. Bond investors now have the same due diligence as regards US debt. I expect US bond yields to rise further to reflect this, which will act as a great constraint over his administration.

Your second point has some validation, but it wasn't a decisive factor. Hilary was unable to turn that into a game changer.

Billy86

Rightwing wrote: »

No, I'm claiming that it is more important for Trump's creditors to carry out due diligence than it is for Trump to acquire casinos with someone elses money. He will wipe them out. Bond investors now have the same due diligence as regards US debt. I expect US bond yields to rise further to reflect this, which will act as a great constraint over his administration.

Your second point has some validation, but it wasn't a decisive factor. Hilary was unable to turn that into a game changer.

Ah, got you on that first point. There is an aspect of gaming the system there alright, though that's typically to act as a parachute after he has driven a business into the ground (it is also is a reason he has allegedly had to seek loans abroad in places like Russia) and as you point out, it's not necessarily as easy as that when you're the POTUS.

Though the second point not to do with the election - Trump won that fair and square - just to do with the assertion that American's "don't care" about his taxes.

A slight aside, but if they do insist on keeping the EC system I really don't see why it's not weighted at say '1 EC seat per 100,000'. It would bring the total number to 3,189 EC votes, giving each Wyoming and Vermont 6 rather than their current 3, California 550, Texas 300, and so on, leading to a fairer representation of the population while allowing them to keep their antiquated system. Though I have a feeling one particular side of the aisle would kick up absolute blue murder if that were proposed. There's a very noticeable correlation.

http://4.1m.yt/yBHiJwv.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Red_and_Blue_States_Map_(Average_Margins_of_Presidential_Victory).svg

Rightwing

Billy86 wrote: »

Ah, got you on that first point. There is an aspect of gaming the system there alright, though that's typically to act as a parachute after he has driven a business into the ground (it is also is a reason he has allegedly had to seek loans abroad in places like Russia) and as you point out, it's not necessarily as easy as that when you're the POTUS.

Though the second point not to do with the election - Trump won that fair and square - just to do with the assertion that American's "don't care" about his taxes.

A slight aside, but if they do insist on keeping the EC system I really don't see why it's not weighted at say '1 EC seat per 100,000'. It would bring the total number to 3,189 EC votes, giving each Wyoming and Vermont 6 rather than their current 3, California 550, Texas 300, and so on, leading to a fairer representation of the population while allowing them to keep their antiquated system. Though I have a feeling one particular side of the aisle would kick up absolute blue murder if that were proposed. There's a very noticeable correlation.

http://4.1m.yt/yBHiJwv.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Red_and_Blue_States_Map_(Average_Margins_of_Presidential_Victory).svg

This winner takes all seems a crazy situation for sure. If you were a Republican voter, you are just wasting your time going to the polls in say California.

Billy86

Rightwing wrote: »

This winner takes all seems a crazy situation for sure. If you were a Republican voter, you are just wasting your time going to the polls in say California.

True, and likewise for a Democrat in a bunch of red states. Isn't it something like 8-12 states depending on circumstances that only ever matter? Now the rust belt issue did make a bit of a change in this cycle on some traditional blue ones, but it makes you wonder if the other 40-odd states who typically just vote for the letter beside the candidate's name rather than the candidate themselves (you could literally run Hitler(R) against a good Democrat or Stalin(D) against a good Republican candidate and they would get millions and millions of votes by default) are continuously shooting themselves in the foot by basically making their EC votes worthless due to being such a given from the get-go. I can tell tell you who Alabama and Vermont will each vote for in the next 5 election cycles barring something cataclysmic for example, and I'm sure you can tell me too... so why should the Reps bother trying to keep them happy, or the Dems bother trying to get them onside?

BorneTobyWilde

Trump is a special case
Not as if he runs a corner store
His mission as a business man is to avoid costs legally
Obviously he is good at that ,as he's audited regularly
It might not look good on paper so why release it
Just be happy it's legal and move on .
IRS see everything he does, they're happy so everyone else should be too.

Billy86

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Trump is a special case
Not as if he runs a corner store
His mission as a business man is to avoid costs legally
Obviously he is good at that ,as he's audited regularly
It might not look good on paper so why release it
Just be happy it's legal and move on .
IRS see everything he does, they're happy so everyone else should be too.

The IRS would not have any problem with Trump having money coming in from a Mr. P. Utin's own personal because that's not what they look for. The US public and intelligence community investigating Russia's role in the election and Trump's ties to Russia on the other hand, would have a problem with it.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You numbers need a bit of lowering there. 54% of male college graduates that voted voted for him and the same with the 45% stat on females.
In total only 53% of the American electorate actually voted. So almost half did not vote at all.

Billy86

eire4 wrote: »

You numbers need a bit of lowering there. 54% of male college graduates that voted voted for him and the same with the 45% stat on females.
In total only 53% of the American electorate actually voted. So almost half did not vote at all.

I'm guessing the statistic is in the "of those who voted" sense, though we've already worked out he was being less than genuine as his numbers only pertained to white voters.

eire4

Billy86 wrote: »

Ah, got you on that first point. There is an aspect of gaming the system there alright, though that's typically to act as a parachute after he has driven a business into the ground (it is also is a reason he has allegedly had to seek loans abroad in places like Russia) and as you point out, it's not necessarily as easy as that when you're the POTUS.

Though the second point not to do with the election - Trump won that fair and square - just to do with the assertion that American's "don't care" about his taxes.

A slight aside, but if they do insist on keeping the EC system I really don't see why it's not weighted at say '1 EC seat per 100,000'. It would bring the total number to 3,189 EC votes, giving each Wyoming and Vermont 6 rather than their current 3, California 550, Texas 300, and so on, leading to a fairer representation of the population while allowing them to keep their antiquated system. Though I have a feeling one particular side of the aisle would kick up absolute blue murder if that were proposed. There's a very noticeable correlation.

http://4.1m.yt/yBHiJwv.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Red_and_Blue_States_Map_(Average_Margins_of_Presidential_Victory).svg

Certainly the current electoral college system is undemocratic on its face when it can put in office presidents against the wishes of the majority of those who voted. But the arguably even worse fact of the current system in terms of being undemocratic is that as things stand the vote of people in more populated states like California, Illinois or Texas counts less then the vote of a person in a less populated state like Wyoming or the Dakota's. That really is a quite amazing state of affairs for a country that claims it is a democracy.

eire4

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm guessing the statistic is in the "of those who voted" sense, though we've already worked out he was being less than genuine as his numbers only pertained to white voters.

I am guessing your right there on that being out of those who voted yes. But given how in this past election close to have the electorate did not vote it does matter as those stats give a very false impression.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't care.

The IRS seems to care, as they're doing the audits. Given that the US's tax system is stupidly complicated, I can barely do my own taxes, and likely cannot understand the various rules applicable to a multi-million dollar portfolio, I don't know what I'd do with them anyway. If Trump's done something wrong, I presume the IRS will figure it out. If he hasn't done anything wrong, I presume the IRS will not announce anything odd.

Aside from the fact that the popular vote statement is akin to saying that a someone got the highest jump in a long-jump competition, I'd also observe that if one discounts California, the popular vote of the remaining 49 States went for Trump. Goes to show just how disproportionate California is.

Republicans would love your approach there of voter suppression in discounting Californian votes.

Manic Moran

Not suppressing them. I'm making a point about the relevant weight of one single State in the election of the President of the Fifty States. People keep confusing the position with that of a single unified nation's people, which it is absolutely not. One can't rely on a "weight of numbers" approach and discount an alternate angle on that same approach, especially when the latter is actually more relevant to the nature of the country.

FatherTed

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not suppressing them. I'm making a point about the relevant weight of one single State in the election of the President of the Fifty States. People keep confusing the position with that of a single unified nation's people, which it is absolutely not. One can't rely on a "weight of numbers" approach and discount an alternate angle on that same approach, especially when the latter is actually more relevant to the nature of the country.

On the other hand we can say the Majority is being discounted and the minority are more relevant/important.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

Certainly the current electoral college system is undemocratic on its face when it can put in office presidents against the wishes of the majority of those who voted. But the arguably even worse fact of the current system in terms of being undemocratic is that as things stand the vote of people in more populated states like California, Illinois or Texas counts less then the vote of a person in a less populated state like Wyoming or the Dakota's. That really is a quite amazing state of affairs for a country that claims it is a democracy.

Well, to a point. Firstly, despite the fact that "undemocratic" arguments are only valid when one is attempting to view the US as an entity which it is not, it is worth pointing out that nobody seems to be complaining much about the British system where the party with the most votes has lost twice since WW2. Indeed, it is theoretically possible (although highly unlikely) for the party in the U.K. with the most votes to end up with zero seats in parliament. There is always going to be some level of undemocraticness in a functioning government, the exact philosophy behind the nature of that country indicates quite where that disconnect is.

The second point is a reflection of the first. The relative "weight" of a voter is directly related to the number of people voting, and for whom they voted. If CA's turnout was incredibly low, and one voter only voted, that voter provided 55 EC votes. They are entirely independed plurality systems. Thus, if you run the numbers, despite CA having the reputation of being the most "diluted" weight per voter, you'll find that in practice, it took fewer CA votes for Clinton to give her one EC vote (101635 per EC vote) than it took a slightly smaller state such as New York (142982) or a much smaller state like Maryland (149795).

Manic Moran

FatherTed wrote: »

On the other hand we can say the Majority is being discounted and the minority are more relevant/important.

You can, doesn't make it correct. 37 States voted for Trump for the position of President of the United States, vs 23 and a district for Clinton. Which side had the majority? EC weighting is a compromise between the fifty legally equal states, and the fact that some are bigger than others.

FatherTed

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, to a point. Firstly, despite the fact that "undemocratic" arguments are only valid when one is attempting to view the US as an entity which it is not, it is worth pointing out that nobody seems to be complaining much about the British system where the party with the most votes has lost twice since WW2. Indeed, it is theoretically possible (although highly unlikely) for the party in the U.K. with the most votes to end up with zero seats in parliament. There is always going to be some level of undemocraticness in a functioning government, the exact philosophy behind the nature of that country indicates quite where that disconnect is.

The second point is a reflection of the first. The relative "weight" of a voter is directly related to the number of people voting, and for whom they voted. If CA's turnout was incredibly low, and one voter only voted, that voter provided 55 EC votes. They are entirely independed plurality systems. Thus, if you run the numbers, despite CA having the reputation of being the most "diluted" weight per voter, you'll find that in practice, it took fewer CA votes for Clinton to give her one EC vote (101635 per EC vote) than it took a slightly smaller state such as New York (142982) or a much smaller state like Maryland (149795).

Where did you get that number? Clinton got 8,753,788 votes in CA(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016 ) so 8,753,788 divided by 55 EC votes is 159159.78. Anyways that is an inaccurate way of calculating how much every EC vote is worth. You need to calculate it on the either the total population or total eligible voters. Otherwise you're disenfranchising the voters of the other candidates and non-voters because they have right to vote too. After all the ECs per state are the 2 senate seats plus the number of House seats. The House is calculated on population not who voted for a winning candidate.

Jimoslimos

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, to a point. Firstly, despite the fact that "undemocratic" arguments are only valid when one is attempting to view the US as an entity which it is not, it is worth pointing out that nobody seems to be complaining much about the British system where the party with the most votes has lost twice since WW2. Indeed, it is theoretically possible (although highly unlikely) for the party in the U.K. with the most votes to end up with zero seats in parliament.

I have been extremely critical of the British FPTP system in the past. I would even go so far as saying that the most important referendum in the UK's recent history wasn't Brexit but rather the one held in 2011 on electoral reform (which didn't pass).

The only reason Trump's "minority" victory is being discussed is because some posters reckon that winning makes him beyond reproach and gives him carte blanche to do as he sees fit. He isn't simply going to be President of Those Who Voted for Him but (unfortunately) everybody else as well.

Manic Moran

Odd. Politico ( http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president ) and CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/election/results) are both showing 7.3m. I note that Wiki cites Politico as a source and provides a link, but the numbers don't match.

[Edit]I went to California Secretary of State. They're certifying 8.7million. Fair enough[/Edit]

They do have the right to vote, of course, but if they don't win, they may as well have never voted. That's why every State needs to be taken as an isolated case instead of simply tallying up the lot. As was mentioned, a large number of Republicans don't even bothering to show in California as it's pretty much a foregone conclusion. What's the point, if all they're worried about is the Presidential?
At least the House is subdivided into more districts where a Republican can win in California. As opposed to the Senate.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

You can, doesn't make it correct. 37 States voted for Trump for the position of President of the United States, vs 23 and a district for Clinton. Which side had the majority? EC weighting is a compromise between the fifty legally equal states, and the fact that some are bigger than others.

The majority of people who bothered to vot voted for the losing side due to the patently undemocratic nature of the electorate process and that is before we even get started on the fact that even that system is dysfunctional, broken and corrupt which is why almost half of Americans (46%) did not even bother to vote I would contend.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not suppressing them. I'm making a point about the relevant weight of one single State in the election of the President of the Fifty States. People keep confusing the position with that of a single unified nation's people, which it is absolutely not. One can't rely on a "weight of numbers" approach and discount an alternate angle on that same approach, especially when the latter is actually more relevant to the nature of the country.

Yes what a disgrace it would be to allow the millions of people who live in California, Illinois or Texas have their vote count the same as the people who live in Montana, Wyoming or Idaho what a terrible idea.

FatherTed

Manic Moran wrote: »

Odd. Politico ( http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president ) and CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/election/results) are both showing 7.3m. I note that Wiki cites Politico as a source and provides a link, but the numbers don't match.

[Edit]I went to California Secretary of State. They're certifying 8.7million. Fair enough[/Edit]

They do have the right to vote, of course, but if they don't win, they may as well have never voted. That's why every State needs to be taken as an isolated case instead of simply tallying up the lot. As was mentioned, a large number of Republicans don't even bothering to show in California as it's pretty much a foregone conclusion. What's the point, if all they're worried about is the Presidential?
At least the House is subdivided into more districts where a Republican can win in California. As opposed to the Senate.

You can say the same about democrats in majorly red states. Or even in blue states, I'm sure a lot of democrats in CA any NY said well my state is going blue anyway so why bother.

All the more reason that the EC is a flawed idea now. If it is based on popular vote, we would get a much bigger turnout. I would guess maybe 10% more.

In any case about the original topic, yes we should see Trump's tax returns. He complains about being audited but that didn't stop Nixon when he was being audit. The IRS commissioner has said the audit does not prevent him from releasing his returned plus he is being audited for years after 2009 so why can he release his returns up to 2008? But it doesn't matter much anyway because the election is over and no matter what is in his tax returns won't change the minds of the trump minority. He said it himself, he could go down 5th ave and shoot someone and nothing would happen to him.

SeamusFX

I think the linked article below concludes Trump is lying (again) when he said the American public did not care that he had not released his tax returns!

"He could not be more wrong. When I asked users on Twitter, the president-elect’s favored megaphone, to retweet if they cared about Mr. Trump’s tax returns, within hours more than 79,000 people responded.

The reason is simple. Without these returns, Americans cannot know whether he is using the presidency to enrich himself and his family. Americans won’t know whether a policy he proposes primarily benefits steelworkers in Pennsylvania or lines his own pocket.

They will also be unable to tell whether Mr. Trump is telling the truth when he claims to have no connections to Russia, contradicting public evidence and statements by his own son. His stated excuse about being under audit doesn’t pass the smell test. Previous presidents and nominees have released their returns under the same circumstances."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/opinion/why-americans-care-about-trumps-tax-returns.html