Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

Gotta put the recorded surveillance from the microwave on something.

It's okay, Mexico will reimburse us and donate some land to build the wall on. It'll be on that check they'll cut us for the cost of construction.

Texans can just escape through the tunnels in Walmart.

FTFY.

I'm (correctly) predicting that you will ignore the differences I wrote about in the following paragraphs and declare them to be the same exact thing and thus conclude that the reason I'm treating them differently must be because of my own biases or something. And you respond to this by more or less proving my point for me. Great job!



You seem to have failed to grasp that I don't have to agree or disagree with something in order to observe why someone might do such a thing. In both Obama's case with the birth certificate and Trump's case with the tax returns, they gain politically by *not* turning over the requested documentation. It allows them to frame those demanding the "long form <whatever>" as fringe nutters, and further frame anyone who agrees with them with the same broad brush. It just struck me how the "leak/release" of a single two page 1040 form (which has zero detail at all, absent the normal attached schedules) is nearly a perfect analogy to the release of Obama's certification of live birth (also providing no details in terms of how the data was generated), and that both serve the same purpose.

You're way too caught up in demanding people "pick a side" and argue for it. I'm not doing that here. I'm just pointing out the pattern of behavior and making observations about those behaviors and how they fit into a pattern. Trump quite obviously saw how effective Obama's refusal to release the full long form birth certificate was in terms of dismissing critics, and looks to be doing the same thing with his tax returns. How successful that'll be remains to be seen (and frankly isn't the point here). I just find the similarities to be too striking to ignore.

And yeah, for those paying attention, I'm making a similar observation with regard to the whole "Obama spied on my campaign!" claim. It's not about the claim (just as it's not about the tax forms). It's about putting the idea that an unsubstantiated claim should or should not receive weight front and center in the public's eye, and forcing people to think in that context. And frankly, it looks like it's working. I don't recall a single pundit stopping and making the specific point that the claims of collusion between the Russians and Trumps campaign was completely unsubstantiated until after Trump made his "Obama spied on me" tweets. Now? Pretty much every single discussion on that issue includes a demand for dismissal of Trump's claim and is countered by some form of "Ok, but doesn't the claim about Russian collusion in the election have just as little evidence?".

It's about framing the narrative. And as obnoxious as it is, it's working. I don't have to like it at all to observe what it is and what effect it's having. Again. I think you're too caught up in liking or disliking something. It's not really about that. At least, not for me.

The requirement that a president must be a natural born citizen is actually written into the constitution and long predates the precedent of presidential candidates willingly choosing to show their tax returns (like by a couple hundred years).




Sure. In that one is a document which would help in establishing whether a firm legal requirement to hold the office has been met, while the other is a document that candidates have gotten into the habit of providing to the public as a means of increasing their electability by showing they have "nothing to hide". Failing to provide the former document casts doubt as to whether that legal requirement to hold the office has been met, and continues to cast that doubt after the election even if the candidate wins despite not providing it. Failing to provide the latter document may erode confidence in the candidate during the election, which may result in decreased voter support, but one can argue that if the candidate wins the election despite not providing it, that there's no further value or need for it. The *only* reason to show the tax returns is to gain voter support. There's no potential legal ramifications if he doesn't.

Releasing tax returns helps in meeting one of the criteria for holding the office (winning the vote). Releasing sufficient birth documentation helps in meeting an entirely different criteria for holding the office (being a natural born citizen). If one succeeds in winning the vote, he's met that criteria already. It's done. Winning the vote does not mean one has meet the natural born citizenship requirement though. So yeah, they are quite different in that respect.

Um... But having said all of that, I was simply pointing out that in both cases, the method of releasing a "partial document" seems almost designed to create a scenario where those demanding the document in question will not be satisfied with the release and will continue to demand it, while the candidate/president can claim he's already provided sufficient information, and thus dismiss those demands as unreasonable, and those continuing to demand it as fringe nutters. Again, it's not really about the document in question, it's about constructing an "I already did that, so people demanding that I do it are crazy and can be dismissed as so" narrative.

And in that way, they are quite similar.

This

Requests for that specific document? Hard to say, given that birth certificates themselves didn't become essentially standard "must have" records until the creation of Social Security). Requests for proof of natural citizenship? Absolutely predates the request for tax forms. The first president to face such a challenge was Chester A. Author. Heck. A challenge was made regarding George Romney (who ran against NIxon in the 68 primary). Um... The whole tax form thing started *after* Nixon was president.

And there's a whole list of challenges in between those two as well.



I think both sides make efforts to politicize these sorts of issues, in both directions. I just found it interesting the parallel between Obama releasing a short form certification, which did not contain the information that was being requested (the hospital and doctors signature), and Trump releasing (ok, leaking) a bare 1040, which also does not contain the information that was being requested (how much of his financial interests lie with foreign parties, etc). I'm sure it could all just be a coincidence, but man is it a nearly perfect one if it is.



And one isn't in any way related to any legal requirement to hold the office, while the other is.

The only thing exceptional about Obama's case (among all other challenges to natural born citizenship that I've heard about), was his unwillingness to provide as much evidence to support his natural born citizenship as possible. Everyone else who faced such a challenge, met it by proving as much documentation as existed to prove their status. Obama provided the minimum amount which he could claim was sufficient. The contrast between him and McCain (who also faced a challenge since he was born in the Panama Canal zone) is stark. While McCain never provided his birth certificate to the public, he didn't need to, since there was no doubt that he was born either on the military base, or in the zone itself. There was a law passed in 1937 conferring citizenship status to those born there to at least one US citizen (which applied to him). But since there was still question about whether a retroactive granting of citizenship qualified as "natural born citizen at birth", he also sought and obtained a Senate resolution declaring him to meet the natural born citizenship requirement to hold the office of president.

Obama was not unique or exceptional in that he faced questions about his qualification under that clause. His response (or lack thereof) to it was. There were a number of avenues he could have followed to at least reduce if not eliminate such questions. He chose to do "just enough" that he and his supporters could claim it was "proven", but not really enough to actually prove it, nor even to show that he'd done all he could to prove it. And yeah, I suspect that was intentional. And given the value of labeling people as "birthers", I think there's a pretty decent argument in support of that suspicion.

No, neither one is. Obama was never legally required to provide his birth certificate. This is perhaps the one way in which the situations are the same.

There's five people who post here. There is no "winning" or "losing", just wasting time and idle amusement. No one is thinking "Boy, I'm going to change Gbaji's mind!" or "The merits of my argument will be judged accordingly by the community!"

Other than being so white he makes San Diego look like Alphabet City, Neil Gorsuch seems to be handling his confirmation hearing pretty well.

Obama is legally required to be a natural born citizen. How do you imagine one proves that? Perhaps with a document? A document that tells us precisely where and when he was born, complete with doctor and witness signatures?

That would be a birth certificate, right? In the same way that a legal age requirement for purchasing alcohol generally requires some form of official document that proves your age. I'm not sure what your argument is here. He's legally required to meet a given status, but not legally required to provide the one document that can clearly prove that status has been met? That seems like spitting hairs to me.




Still not really the same though. There is zero legal requirement for any president to provide their tax returns. There is zero information that may be contained in a tax return that is relevant to any legal requirement to hold the office either.

The question is really easy:

Is there a legal requirement to be president that can be established by providing a given document? In the case of a birth certificate, the answer is yes. The natural born citizenship requirement can be established by use of a birth certificate.

So what legal requirement to be president can be established by providing a tax return? My answer is "none". But you're free to provide your own answer, and we can go from there. But so far, all I've seen is arguments consisting of "well, past presidents have done it". That's great. Past presidents have done lots of things to win voters over. But that's all the whole tax return thing is. A way to win over voters. Unless you can come up with a legal requirement that providing a tax return would help establish? Cause I'm just not seeing it. This is apples and oranges IMO.

The second question being "since every candidate for 45 years has provided tax return data, why is Trump not?"

I already answered this. While birth certificates did not become common documents until after the creation of Social Security, every single presidential candidate for which there was a question as to whether they met the natural born citizen requirement has had to face the need to prove their status. I already mentioned George Romney, who ran against Nixon in the GOP primary back in 68. He faced the same natural born citizen requirement questions that Obama faced. In his cases though, facts in his birth certificate were not the issue. He was born in Mexico. The legal question was whether he was a natural born citizen as a result of both of his parents being US citizens.



See how he actually went out and got an official determination of his status? See how Obama didn't do this, but instead just handwaved the issue away, put it before the court of public opinion, and in the process created a conflict over it?

There's your difference. Like I already said. Everyone else who has faced this issue in that past (and there's been a number of them) has done everything they could to prove their eligibility for the office. Obama did the exact opposite. He seemed to deliberately and unnecessarily want to create questions about his legal status.



You are missing the forest for the freaking trees. It's not about the specific document. It's about the requirement to prove that one is a natural born citizen. In Obama's case, this would best be done by providing his long form birth certificate. Just because that precise document isn't required in every case (like with Romney and McCain), does not mean that in Obama's case, it's not needed.

I mentioned Chester Arthur earlier. He, like Obama, never provided his birth certificate. Of course, in his case, he had a great excuse. He was born in 1829, and the state of Vermont didn't start keeping birth records until 1957 (and neither did the town he was born in). Obama did not have that excuse. He had a long form birth certificate, on file, in the state of Hawaii records, the entire time. He could have trivially provided them. He chose not to.

And just for completeness sake, here's a guy who did more research on this than I'm willing to do.

Note that he's only looking at the last 50 years or so. You'll also note how a couple presidents have birth certificates filled out well after their births. That's because of the whole "no need for one until Social Security came along". Well, and likely employment for the first time that required such a thing. Point being that it's not like this is such a hard thing to do. Obama just made it so.