Who will (can) be swayed by Trump's refusal to divulge his tax returns?

[Auld Phart]

The only ones who might care are left wing sodomite enabling regressives such as yourself. Oh and the media who can use them to fabricate frivolous issues.

View attachment 75371

Graduation picture?

 

[Bill Angel]

A bit "ironic" that a guy who is running on the mantra "I am the very best businessman in the world", won't divulge a factor that could attest to that claim.....don't you think? (Or, do you think?)

Good point. His tax returns might reveal that his self proclaimed "Midas Touch" as a business man is not as valid as he claims it to be.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Interestingly enough, Hillary wants to talk transparency, she shouldn't have hid the fact she destroyed government emails. And we're worried about tax returns?

 

[blackhawk]

For the millionth time not Trump or candidate present or future is legally required to release their tax returns they are private. If people are really truly so concerned about candidates running for President releasing their tax returns contact your represenatives in Washington to get a bill up to the President requiring it and pressure him to sign it into law or shut up about tax returns.

 

[Auld Phart]

Trump has led a life lacking in ethics, morality, honesty and integrity. His tax returns would simply reflect more of the same.

Trump has led a life lacking in ethics, morality, honesty and integrity

Seems to be common this cycle

 

[nat4900]

Nope. The fact he owns a 58 story skyscraper in downtown Manhattan should attest to how well he does business. Oh, speaking of business, I'm of the type who thinks like he, that his tax returns are none of yours.

Capische?

Its "capisci" not the NJ version used by morons.

 

[SmokeALib]

If you clowns really want to see Trumps tax records, they can be found in the safe located next to Obama's college records.

 

[HappyJoy]

Interestingly enough, Hillary wants to talk transparency, she shouldn't have hid the fact she destroyed government emails. And we're worried about tax returns?

Nice switch. She did release 33 years of taxes.

 

[HenryBHough]

Well we tried a "president" with Reverse Midas Touch.....

Wherein any gold that is touched immediately turns to shit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Its "capisci" not the NJ version used by morons.

LOL. Are you mad at the cultural appropriation? Trigger warning!

 

[HappyJoy]

If you clowns really want to see Trumps tax records, they can be found in the safe located next to Obama's college records.

Trump didn't provide his either and nobody is asking.

 

[nat4900]

For the millionth time not Trump or candidate present or future is legally required to release their tax returns they are private. If people are really truly so concerned about candidates running for President releasing their tax returns contact your represenatives in Washington to get a bill up to the President requiring it and pressure him to sign it into law or shut up about tax returns.

My point was and is that Trump LIED about first stating that he would release them........and then.......

 

[HenryBHough]

Interestingly enough, Hillary wants to talk transparency, she shouldn't have hid the fact she destroyed government emails. And we're worried about tax returns?

Nice switch. She did release 33 years of taxes.

How about the ones covering pay for speeches (read "influence")?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Interestingly enough, Hillary wants to talk transparency, she shouldn't have hid the fact she destroyed government emails. And we're worried about tax returns?

Nice switch. She did release 33 years of taxes.

Government emails aren't tax returns. Though destroying either could land you in jail.

False equivalence, Joy.

 

[HappyJoy]

Interestingly enough, Hillary wants to talk transparency, she shouldn't have hid the fact she destroyed government emails. And we're worried about tax returns?

Nice switch. She did release 33 years of taxes.

How about the ones covering pay for speeches (read "influence")?

Read my post. Especially the "nice switch" part.

 

[Indeependent]

Hillary was BROKE 8 years ago until the press discovered she was worth 85 Million.
Now what was that about Tax Returns?
You're such a tool.

You could have just as easily stated...."Trump has every right to LIE about first divulging his tax returns and then saying, fuck you, its none of your business...."

My main concern is the issue that Trump and Sanders have been banging away at for 20 years...
Globalization and it's destruction of the Middle Class.
Hillary is too little, too late on this issue.

 

[chikenwing]

The answer posed in the thread's title may indeed be, NO ONE.....

The acolytes that hate Hillary (and Obama) enough, will ALWAYS side with Trump regardless of the stupidity he spews....as he himself stated about shooting someone on 5th Ave, and not lose a single vote from his "following".

For Trump divulging his taxes has no "up-side"........His returns may indeed show that he is more of a self-promoter than a truly successful businessman....and Trump would simply hate to respond to all those pesky media questions raised by those tax returns.

Conversely, NOT divulging his taxes will have no impact on his followers. Very few, if any, right wing voter has a fence left whereupon to sit..

The butt hurt is strong with this one!!

 

[nat4900]

Vote for America for a change.

Ahhhh, "brilliant"....Now America is represented and epitomized by a self-centered, orangy clown.

 

[HappyJoy]

Interestingly enough, Hillary wants to talk transparency, she shouldn't have hid the fact she destroyed government emails. And we're worried about tax returns?

Nice switch. She did release 33 years of taxes.

Government emails aren't tax returns. Though destroying either could land you in jail.

False equivalence, Joy.

It's not a false equivalence, it's off topic. What does Clinton allegedly destroying emails (or the GWB White House that actually did) have to do with the up or down side of Trump releasing his tax return? Nothing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Read my post. Especially the "nice switch" part.

I read your post. Your assertion was false equivalence, thus it doesn't warrant any further discussion.