Is Trump's real agenda to monetize the fringe right wing base?

[Final-Fan]

fatslob-:O said:

Final-Fan said:

fatslob, why do you suppose that Trump would have more reason to hide his tax returns than every president since Nixon? Revealing this data has been traditional—and routine—for decades for presidential candidates as part of showing the voters what they are all about. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

You said, "I've done my research and I've come to the conclusion that Trump is not a politician so how exactly am I looking to put in another corrupt career politician when he isn't even one?"

Well, let me put it this way. You claim that Trump is not at fault for lying to those people in those letters because he never made a legal contract with them. ("In business, a man's word is of no guarantees. Only the legal contract matters.") Where is the legal contract he is making with America now? If he's made a career out of swindling the American public as a businessman, why should we trust that he's not going to swindle the American public as a politician?

Since when was releasing your tax returns a requirement ? I don't care about tradition if it's not the rule ... 

That legal contract your looking for is the constitution and don't worry about congress one upping Trump since it's full of neoconservatives which hate him compared to Clinton ...

I don't need tax returns to tell who is on what side ...

1.  I never said it was a requirement.  I said that presidential candidates have done it routinely for decades to demonstrate to the voting public that they have nothing to hide as far as their personal financial situation goes, and the natural inference to draw from Trump's refusal to do so is that he does have something to hide in that regard.  Not necessarily something illegal, but perhaps it would show that he has been lying about something that he has been claiming in the campaign about his business acumen. 

I sympathize with the viewpoint of "don't do something purely because it's tradition", but there is actually a reason why the public should want to know as much as reasonably possible about prospective Presidents.  Do you disagree? 

2.  "The constitution" is a pretty bad answer.  If the existence of the constitution guaranteed that a president would do a good job and not abuse the powers of the office, Nixon would be remembered as one of our better presidents.  For that matter, why are you worried about Hillary Clinton if all you need to do to prevent abuse of power is to remind her that the constitution exists? 

I will ask you again, if Trump's promises are worthless except in the context of a binding legal document, what binding legal document exists to assure us that Trump has any intention whatsoever of doing any of the things he has promised you he would do?  Maybe he'd be happy to let ISIS through immigration for $10,000 per terrorist, cash only.  As long as he could find a constitutional way to do it.  He doesn't want to build a wall, and if he did he wouldn't make Mexico pay for it.  He'd make New Mexico pay for it, and tell us he didn't specify "which Mexico" he was talking about.