(July 9, 2020 at 1:29 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(July 9, 2020 at 1:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I get it, but even if the limitations are as long as you say, that is 4 more years of damage and propaganda.
I think we need to be real here. The best case scenario is that he loses in November. He certainly doesn't have the morals to do what Nixion did.
But if he wins, the "burden" argument stays in play, and that is still 4 more years of damage he can and will do, even if one wants to argue that he can still be held responsible after his second term.
Um no, I don't find requiring anyone running for that office requiring their financials for 10 years stupid.
Even outside government, those applying to be bank loan officers or even mere tellers have their asses crawled up before getting that job.
If you want your bank to be honest, and you expect them to protect your money you intrust them when you deposit it, how the fuck should a President be held to less scrutiny?
No, you don’t get it. Try thinking of it this way: In Trump’s case, a sealed indictment would extend the statute of limitations until he leaves office, either in 2021 or in 2024.
I agree that candidates should be required to disclose their financial history, but a constitutional amendment is a stupid way to go about it.
Boru
What?
Bank CEO, and employee meet to discuss employment,
Bank CEO, " Well Mam/sir, I would love to give you the job, but can I see your financials?"
Person applying for the job, "No, that is my private business".
Bank CEO, (metaphor for american voters) "Ok, I guess I went too far."
Putin, "EXCELLENT"
