JustRandy

LOL! Well for me it's not about the power but the large spool to carry a long cable. I could make do with a 1000lb winch if one came with the large spool, and if I needed more power I'd just use a snatch block (ie pulley). That and the 2000-3000lb variety are kinda clunky in my opinion. I have one on the back of my quad to pull in reverse and to tow logs. I'd like to find a super-lightweight 500lb winch for my sport quad, but I abandoned that search 10 yrs ago. The smallest I could find was 1500 and it wasn't really that light.

I've actually done tests pulling a train of quads with the brakes locked up a hill and seeing which winch kills a big deep cycle marine battery first. So I can say with certainty the winch with the higher gears (higher line speed) will do the same work with less drain on the battery. And the difference was quite extreme. The winch with the tall gears had battery to spare while the winch with low gears couldn't complete the task. I had to know because a camping trailer I built used a winch and battery with no charging system that lowered itself down the side of a mountain for camping then needed enough battery capacity to lift itself back out after the weekend, so I had to find the most efficient winch. Yes the larger motor pulls more amps, but the motor also doesn't have to turn as many revolutions to wind in the cable, so the net effect is less amps used in total. The motor with lower gears must turn more revolutions and each revolution loses efficiency due to churning the grease in the gears. A winch with 300:1 will turn 2x more than 100:1 to do the same work and each extra turn is wasting amps by churning grease in 3 sets of planetary gears. I've even gone as far as to add oil to the grease to reduce viscosity.

The Badlands winches are the best in my opinion, particularly the 5000lb UTV winch which has a wide spool and fast reel-in speed. I mainly use the gear ratios to decide on a winch because lower gears not only mean slower reel-in speeds but also wastes the battery churning the grease in the gears. Lower gears typically mean cheaper (ie crappier) winch because the manufacturer can use a smaller motor to achieve the same pulling power. So a 5000lb winch with 100:1 gears is better than a 5000lb winch with 300:1 gears.

Follow the science! Listen to your doctor, not conspiracy theorists! Safe and Effective! No adverse reactions! Disclaimer: Obviously I'm not suggesting smoking is healthy. This just shows that following the science is not as prudent as following the money.

I have been talking to myself.. No one else here but bots.

If you read them then you know exactly how the vaccines predispose one to cancer. You would know the rate of cancer adverse reaction reports are twice more for the covid vaccine than all other vaccines added together over 31 years. You would know Pfizer admitted the vaccine wasn't tested for nor intended to reduce transmission. You would know the vaccine in fact didn't reduce transmission since cases exploded coincident with the vaccine rollout. You would know the vaccine didn't reduce severity because the strain had simply weakened. You would know the vaccine appeared to protect against traffic accidents and falls down stairs because actually it was healthy people taking the vaccine while unhealthy people did not. Therefore you would know the vaccine is neither safe nor effective. Since you don't know those things then you'er either a bot or you're in a cult just like the Trumpers who also ignore mountains of evidence. I don't see any difference in you and the Wrapitall guy.

I can't tell any difference between you and the Trumpers. You're in a cult Dave. You refuse to read anything that may challenge Dear Leader. You only believe government propaganda.

I've read it at least 50 times in the last year. It's WAY over my head but I can understand the gist of it. Here are some snips showing how the vaccine predisposes one to cancer: IRF9 is most directly involved in anti-viral as well as anti-tumor immunity and genetic regulation (Alsamman and El-Masry, 2018; Huang et al., 2019; Zitvogel et al., 2015). Central to both antiviral and anticancer immunity, IFN-α is produced by macrophages and lymphocytes when either is challenged with viral or bacterial infection or encounters tumor cells (De Andrea et al., 2002). Impaired type I IFN signaling is linked to many disease risks, most notably cancer, as type I IFN signaling suppresses proliferation of both viruses and cancer cells by arresting the cell cycle, in part through upregulation of p53, a tumor suppressor gene, and various cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (Musella et al., 2017; Matsuoka et al., 1998). IFN-α also induces major histocompatibility (MHC) class 1 antigen presentation by tumor cells, causing them to be more readily recognized by the cancer surveillance system (Heise et al., 2016; Sundstedt et al., 2008). The range of anticancer effects initiated by IFN-α expression is astounding and occurs through both direct and indirect mechanisms. IRF9 has been suggested to be the primary member of the IRF family of proteins responsible for activation of the IFN-α antiproliferative effects, and that appears to be through its binding to the tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) receptor 1 and 2 (TRAIL-R1/2) (Tsuno et al., 2009). Once TRAIL is bound by IRF9, it is then able to act as a ligand for Death Receptor 4 (DR4) or DR5, initiating a cascade of events involving production of caspase 8 and caspase 3, and ultimately triggering apoptosis (Sayers, 2011). Dysregulation of this pathway, through suppression of either IFN-α or IRF9 and the resulting failure to bind TRAIL-R, has been associated with several hematologic malignancies (Testa, 2010) and has been shown to increase the metastatic potential in animal models of melanoma, colorectal cancer, and lymphoma (Finnberg and El-Deiry, 2008). IFN-α both initiates and orchestrates a wide range of cancer suppressing roles. Dunn et al. (2005) showed that IFN-α plays an active role in cancer immunoediting, its locus of action being hematopoietic cells that are “programmed” via IFN-α binding for tumor surveillance. It is via the exceedingly complex interactions between type I IFNs and IRF7 and IRF9 in particular that a great deal of antiproliferative effects are carried out. This is evidenced by the large number of studies showing increased tumor growth and/or metastases associated with a wide number of cancer types. Since these vaccines are specifically designed to induce high and ongoing production of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoproteins, the implications are ominous. As described above, inhibition of IRF9 will suppress TRAIL and all its regulatory and downstream apoptosis-inducing effects. IRF9 suppression via exosomal microRNA should also be expected to impair the cancer-protective effects of BRCA2 gene activity, which depends on that molecule for its activity as described above. BRCA2-associated cancers include breast, fallopian tube, and ovarian cancer for women, prostate and breast cancer for men, acute myeloid leukaemia in children, and others (National Cancer Institute, 2021). Vaccination has also been demonstrated to suppress both IRF7 and STAT2 (Liu et al., 2021). This can be expected to interfere with the cancer-protective effects of BRCA1 as described above. Cancers associated with impaired BRCA1 activity include breast, uterine, and ovarian cancer in women; prostate and breast cancer in men; and a modest increase in pancreatic cancer for both men and women (Cancer risk and BRCA1 gene, 2021).

Don't forget to have your son read this peer reviewed published research https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X

You are still arguing how safe smoking is because most people who smoke don't suffer any adverse effects. Most people who go out in sunlight do not get skin cancer. Most people who use herbicides do not get cancer. Yet tobacco, sunlight, and herbicides are still mutagenic. (That's why I only use herbicides that are not mutagenic, such as the bromine based.) Roundup works by essentially giving the plant cancer. It's mutagenic by design. The mrna vaccines are mutagenic as well. The vast majority of adverse vaccine reactions are not reported. And who would associate a cancer diagnosis months or years after a vaccine? My uncle got cancer a few months after a covid vaccine, but no one reported it to VAERS. In spite of that under-reporting, cancer associated with covid vaccines are still twice all other vaccines in 31 years! 15.2 VAERS Signal for Cancer Cancer is a disease generally understood to take months or, more commonly, years to progress from an initial malignant transformation in a cell to development of a clinically recognized condition. Since VAERS reports of adverse events are happening primarily within the first month or even the first few days after vaccination [209], it seems likely that the acceleration of cancer progression following vaccines would be a difficult signal to recognize. Furthermore, most people do not expect cancer to be an adverse event that could be caused by a vaccine. However, as we have outlined in our paper, if the mRNA vaccinations are leading to widespread dysregulation of oncogene controls, cell cycle regulation, and apoptosis, then VAERS reports should reflect an increase in reports of cancer, relative to the other vaccines. This is in fact what VAERS reports reflect, and dramatically so. Table 1 illustrates events involving the most common cancers reported to VAERS in the US, cancers either newly identified or stable disease newly progressing. It compares reports related to COVID-19 vaccination to reports related to all other vaccinations over the 31-year history of VAERS information collection. Notably, there were three times as many reports of breast cancer following a COVID-19 vaccine, and more than six times the number of reports of B-cell lymphoma. All but one of the cases of follicular lymphoma were associated with COVID-19 vaccines. Pancreatic carcinoma was more than three times as high. This cannot be explained by reference to a disproportionately large number of people receiving an mRNA vaccination in the past year compared to all other vaccinations. The total number of people receiving a non-COVID-19 vaccination is unknown, but over the 31 years history of reports VAERS contains it is unquestionably many orders of magnitude larger than the number receiving an mRNA vaccination in the past year. Overall, in the above table, twice as many cancer reports to VAERS are related to a COVID-19 vaccination compared to those related to all other vaccines. That, in our opinion, constitutes a signal in urgent need of investigation. https://www.authorea.com/users/455597/articles/552937-innate-immune-suppression-by-sars-cov-2-mrna-vaccinations-the-role-of-g-quadruplexes-exosomes-and-micrornas https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X

If you don't want to argue about vaccines then why did you bring it up knowing that we disagree? I am convinced because I've read published research describing exactly how the vaccines cause cancer. I've seen the explosion of cancer cases coincident with the vaccines. I've noted that vaccinations and cancer often go hand in hand given that it's required to vaccinate pets in a limb that can be cut off after cancer develops. And I've seen with my own eyes people getting cancer right after getting the vaccine. I'd have to be crazy to dismiss all that evidence. Have your son read this paper and tell you what it says https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X It is peer reviewed and published. Maybe with his medical training he is equipped to understand it. I bet if he reads it he will never take another vaccine in his life, especially given the history of cancer in your family. Just because you take a vaccine and survive does not mean the vaccine is safe. It only means you were lucky. Just because you smoked and survived does not mean smoking is safe. It only means you were lucky. It took a lot of years for the tobacco industry to admit tobacco is dangerous and it will take a lot of years before the medical industry admits vaccines are dangerous. Let's drop this tropic until your son reads that paper. Now tell me why you're scared of DeSantis. What do you think he will do that I won't like? I'm genuinely interested to know. I'm sure there is a lot I can learn from you.

I guess that's true but the word slave comes from Slav who were white people, presumably with darker eyes and skin enslaved by the red and blonde Germanic and Norse who were considered prized slaves for the Romans. Whites discriminated and enslaved each other throughout history. I'd prefer nobody gets a medal nor parade because as long as one color is celebrated we're still observing color, which is supposed to be irrelevant. It's hypocrisy and more do-gooder-ness that just results in more suffering than if nothing at all were done. I'm not looking for it. I'm looking for something without it. Terminator is supposed to be a big masculine guy. Instead the last couple Terminator movies they were women, and the last one I couldn't tell for sure what sex it was, and the only reason a big white guy was in the movie at all is because that's how the series started in the 80s. It's stupid and transparently political. And the new Matrix was some purple-haired misfit, once again transparently political to shape society rather than entertain or make money. There is no proof they worked. Covid cases exploded after the vaccine. Pfizer even admitted the vaccine wasn't tested for nor intended to reduce transmission. The only intention was to reduce severity. But the death rate declined because the virus was milder as time went on and doctors had learned what worked and what didn't, which had nothing to do with the vaccine. And did the vaccine protected against traffic accidents and falls down stairs? No, it was simply that healthy people were getting the vaccine while unhealthy people were not. The vaccine didn't do anything at all, except give side effects. You can keep your head in the ground if you want to, but reality is still happening. The miserable failure of the vaccines has caused participation in other vaccines to plummet. We're set for a record flu season because few are taking any vaccines anymore. Another example of do-gooders causing more harm. Saw this on google news. The truth is coming out. Cancer and vaccines have a long storied history together. By law they give rabies vaccines in a limb that can be cut off if cancer develops. mrna vaccines in particular raise risk of cancer in those who are predisposed to it. I could post studies but I think you'd ignore them. Grandpa had several recurrences from 84 to 92, but died cancer-free of something else entirely at 96. My uncle was cured 8 years, which is remarkable considering they both had the same cancer. Then he got the vaccine and a few months later the cancer returned. Heck of a coincidence. People smoke for decades and do not get cancer. Does that mean smoking is not carcinogenic? People use glyphosate for years and don't get cancer. Does that mean glyphosate is not carcinogenic? People get sunburns all the time, but does that mean UV radiation is not carcinogenic? Just because you and people you know did not get cancer does not mean the vaccine is not a carcinogen. It only means you were lucky.

Why won't I like what DeSantis does? What do you think he will do? People can love who they want, but they don't have to put it on tv. Most people are not that way so there is no sense in flaunting what most people do not like. That is the definition of extreme. People who are 2% of society should have 2% of tv channels, not 100%. It isn't about rights. Everyone already has equal rights to do whatever or love whoever without it being flaunted. The flaunting and grooming the kids is the issue. Why don't we have straight pride parades? Why don't we have a month devoted to white people? Why is it only minorities? If we had a parade for the majority, it would be called extreme, which is the exact opposite of extreme. Continuing to push what most people don't like will only result in backlash. The same sort of thing happened in Weimar in the 1930s and no one liked the result. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. The vaccines didn't protect anyone nor limit the spread. It only increased heart disease and cancer. My uncle just died of cancer last week. He was free of cancer for 8 yrs until he took the vaccine. There was nothing wrong with him and everyone thought he'd live to 100. Many I know who took the vaccine has either died or has something wrong with them. Meanwhile those who refused are healthier than ever. All that mask and vaccine stuff is the reason I'm 100% in the GOP camp. Before that I was a Bernie donor. It really opened my eyes how authoritarian the liberals are. Ironic that liberal means liberty. I don't care about medicare for all anymore. I just want the gov to leave me alone. That's why otherwise intelligent people vote for Greene. 2 years out from the lockdowns and I still can't find dog and cat food. Shelves are empty like Venezuela. They killed all the chickens over bird flu and now there is no more grain-free petfood. Purina simply quit making it. Pets are being surrendered to shelters or worse. I hate to think about all the animals suffering because of the tyrannical do-gooders meddling in everyone business under the guise of protecting people who ended up dying anyway. That's why Confucius said the do-gooders are the thieves of virtue. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions. People trying to protect me is the scariest thing I can imagine. I want the gov to protect my rights, not protect me. And that's what Kemp and DeSantis represent. We both agree that Bernie's ideas are best, but I just can't risk putting a do-gooder in power after having lived through covid. Maybe that gives you an understanding how the other side thinks.

I think people get emotionally involved and don't want to be wrong. Instead of thinking with their head they think with their emotions. I like listening to the radio guy but I hate hearing constantly that dems are scared of Trump while in fact dems are donating to Trump-endorsed candidates. You're asking the wrong person because I'm still trying to figure out how any republican would vote for Kemp and not vote for Walker. I mean, who cares what anyone thinks of Walker as a person if he will vote like all other republicans about abortion, guns, and other rightwing issues. Why would any republican just let the democrat win because they don't like Walker? It doesn't make sense. And honestly, Kemp is not that great. He's hillbilly bumpkin with little education who just happened to have an influential father. The only notable things he did was not shut the state down for covid and keep his mouth shut about election fraud (probably because his daughter's boyfriend died in a car explosion the day after he said he might call a special session to investigate election fraud and from then on he didn't say a word). Studies show conservatism increases with: government corruption, deterioration of public services, disparity and economic hardship, etc. In other words, if you want more conservatives then make things harder on people. If we just look at whites, then liberals are the well-to-do ones while conservatives are the poor ones. The problem with fake liberals and centrists is they don't do anything for the people which leads to increasing conservatives. For instance Biden said he'd pardon those convicted for marijuana, but in reality no one qualifies. Centrism is the worst. That's why I said it would have been better to let Trump win in 2020 than have Biden because a worse Trump would come along and now that day is here with DeSantis. I told ya so. Trump was just a bubbling fool but DeSantis will actually get things done. If Trump had won 2020 then he wouldn't be able to run again, so we'd have a shot at a decent progressive in 2024. But since Trump lost now DeSantis will likely reign for 8 years because dems have nobody with any name recognition who isn't over 80. The only one who could beat DeSantis is Obama and he can't run. What people see as extreme is the LGBT stuff which are an extreme minority of the population. People are tired of movies and TV being woke political statements and the war on masculinity. People don't want the government locking them down for their own protection. People don't want their kids indoctrinated with what they see as extreme views. Most republicans would see DeSantis as a normal guy and it's the democrats that are extreme.

I can see that. Why do you think they were picked? Because of Trump's endorsement, right? I didn't think Perdue and Loeffler were very good picks either. Kemp Picked Loeffler to fill a vacated seat, but then she turned from a Kemp pick to a Trump sycophant. Greene represents the 2nd most conservative district in the state and one of the most in the country. Here's a map of PVI (partisan voting index) https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0qCy3/2/ She represents the district in the upper left of GA. There was never any chance she was going to lose. I often ask myself why such smart people do such dumb things. A guy I listen to on the radio was Mensa and worked for NASA who just can't get it through his head that Trump isn't our savior. I'd say DeSantis is farther right than any of them, yet he did the best. So moving to the center wouldn't seem to be the best strategy. DeSantis is Trump with a brain. Harvard, Yale, Navy Seal Advisor, Lawyer. Graduated magna cum laude. Trump is just a moron who paid for his grades with daddy's money and doesn't really stand for anything except himself. You were right about him 6 years ago.

There should have been a red wave in light of inflation and the unpopularity of dementia Joe. The conclusion is inescapable that Trump pulled the plug on any red wave and once again handed power to the dems. I totally underestimated just how much people don't like Trump. Here we see Georgia actually became more republican in the last 4 years: It's no secret that Kemp and Trump don't like each other. Kemp increased his votes while Abrams lost votes. What I couldn't understand is how Kemp could decidedly win but Walker lost on the same ballot. Who is voting for Kemp, but not Walker? We saw that trend playout across the country: republicans who distanced themselves from Trump did better than the MAGA candidates. DeSantis did exceptionally well! So it's now completely obvious that the senate loss in 2020 was due to Trump. Perdue and Loeffler campaigned with Trump but ultimately lost the senate to Ossoff and Warnock. Now we go to runoff again and I'm afraid the same will happen. Even McEnany is telling Trump to stay away. So yeah, when I said Trump is Biden's only hope for reelection, I was spot on. The dems know it: Liberal fundraisers actually put money behind Trump-endorsed candidates in GOP primaries all over the place to help them prevail so that Democrats could face them in the general election. https://nypost.com/2022/11/09/heres-how-donald-trump-sabotaged-the-republican-midterms/ Anyone still supporting Trump is actually supporting the democrats. We will probably lose the senate once again because of Trump. A prediction I made several years ago was that one day those who supported Trump would never admit it. That day is quickly coming. Who cares about his tax returns now? Trump is done. Nothing but a stain in history.

Sure, if they don't intend to run for office. But if they intend to run for office then they no longer have that right. Their rights are superseded by the public's right to know who they are. You don't trust the press, yet you think the press should be the arbiter of truth. That's cognitive dissonance. If they intend to represent me then I have the right to information about them. It's their choice to run for office. I am not forcing them. When you're out of ammo, throw mud. Plucking your eyes out accomplishes nothing but to reaffirm what I said earlier that you have no interest in the truth.

No, the public has the right to know who their representative is. The representative has no right to conceal who they are. Then you just admitted the press isn't sufficient. Your statement refutes itself. There are plenty of results. You just refuse to see them. That's Dave's point.

The public has the right to know whether their prospective representative is: 1) Responsible with money. 2) In debt so much that they are controlled by bankers. 3) Whether they make charitable contributions. 4) Whether they actually pay any tax or because they're so deep in debt that they haven't paid tax in decades while still living a lavish lifestyle. 5) Whether they are actually as rich as they claim in order to determine if they are a liar. Public representatives have no right to conceal those things from the public. Also, no harm can come from releasing the returns, so it's not even a sacrifice. Also, if a billionaire is really a billionaire, he would be proud to show off his return. The truth is he is billions in the hole and neither he nor you want that fact to be know for certain. Trump would probably hang himself if his returns became public because exposing the con would mean his life is over. That's why he's begging SCOTUS for help. No it's not a witch hunt because I said ALL POLITICIANS should surrender returns. You seem determined not to get that. Read please: Refusing to read indicates you unconditionally support Trump regardless if he's a broke liar with no business sense whatsoever. The truth doesn't matter to you. That was Dave's point. This isn't about Trump v Biden. This is about Trump v DeSantis. DeSantis is by far the better candidate, but Trumpers are so in love with the conman that they risk handing Biden a second term. Trump is the only one who can get Biden reelected. Maybe that's why dems are acting the way they are. Dems want Trump to be the opposition because he's likely to lose.

I placed a bet on predictit over a year ago that republicans would take both houses of congress and I'm even more sure now than then. They should also pick up some governor spots. Should be the biggest red wave since Reagan. You should make a regular account and participate if you want to get people talking. Lay down the badge so people think you're a regular member. That way you could opine without revealing who you are and that you represent the site. It's a shame the site is so inactive because I do love the software.

No I'm saying as a matter of ethics that all politicians should be compelled to release returns, which is probably why all of them instinctively do, except Trump. I'm not saying there is a law enforcing that ethos, but there should be. I also wouldn't see that compulsion as an infringement on rights because no one is forced to run for office. The choice of running for office comes with obligations. For instance I don't run for office because I don't want my life to be public. I don't have the right to run for office while also remaining private because the public has a right to know who I am if I'm going to represent them. The public's right to know their representative supersedes the representative's right to evade being known. Trump doesn't have the right to privacy while also being a public representative. So it's not his right to choose not to release his returns. Voters have the right to know how much debt he has and to what degree he is beholden to bankers. He doesn't have the right to conceal to what degree bankers could influence him because of the debt he's carrying nor the fact that he's irresponsible with money.

Me being safe in my house is entirely different from me seeking public office. You don't see that? No one is forcing anyone to run for public office therefore no one is forcing anyone to submit tax returns. However if you want to run for public office then I think the public has the right to determine whether you're financially responsible so you should be compelled to give up your returns. Furthermore no real harm can come of it because every president before Trump has released their returns and nothing happened to them as a result. So the only concern here is that the truth about Trump may come to light. Unless you see some harm that I haven't thought of. I'm definitely open to new ideas. Plenty of people hate Biden yet he released his returns and seemingly suffered no harm because of it. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/15/biden-tax-return-00025643 Again, if you don't want to release your returns then don't run for public office. If you don't want to give your returns to a bank then don't ask for a loan. No one is forcing you to take a loan or run for office, so the analogy of being safe in your house doesn't apply.

I think the BLM riots were more of an insurrection than jan6 which was mostly just a bunch of people walking around taking pictures after being invited into the capitol by the police. Sure there were a couple scuffles but nothing like BLM riots that were mostly about violence. Jan6 is another witch hunt. The more the democrats try to make big deals of nothing, the stronger it makes Trump. I'm surprised democrats haven't figure that out. Look at his popularity after the FBI raid. There is plenty of legitimate things to complain about Trump without having to make stuff up. If they'd leave him alone he'd probably sink himself.

The bar should be higher for the president. He shouldn't get security clearances without being vetted. And since the public is the president's employer then the public participates in the vetting. If in 2015 the public discovered that he's so deep in debt that the bankers own him, how would that have affected the election? Republicans use Stacey Abrams financial situation to question her ability to manage the finances of Georgia because if she can't handle her own finances how could she handle the State's? And it's a lot like the Hunter laptop story that would have affected Biden's election. Hiding relevant information isn't good. 3 courts and 14 judges so far have unanimously agreed that he should hand them over: Last December, Washington, D.C., federal court Judge Trevor McFadden, who was appointed by Trump, ruled that the Treasury Department had to turn over the tax returns as requested. McFadden said that even if the committee’s request was politically motivated, as Trump has argued, its chairman had stated a “valid legislative purpose” in seeking the returns, as the law required. Trump then appealed McFadden’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In August, a three-judge panel on that appeals court unanimously ruled against Trump. The panel noted that while tax returns are generally confidential under federal law, one exception is when the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee requests such returns in writing from the Treasury Department’s secretary. “The Chairman has identified a legitimate legislative purpose that it requires information to accomplish,” Judge David Sentelle wrote in the panel’s opinion. “At this stage, it is not our place to delve deeper than this.” Trump then asked for a re-hearing of his appeal at the same court in a so-called en banc hearing, in which most of the court’s judges would consider his arguments. On Thursday, a slate of 10 judges on the appeals court unanimously rejected Trump’s request. The same group of judges denied a request by Trump to stay its denial pending his expected petition to the Supreme Court. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, in a statement Thursday said, “The law has always been on our side. Former President Trump has tried to delay the inevitable, but once again, the Court has affirmed the strength of our position.” “We’ve waited long enough — we must begin our oversight of the IRS’s mandatory presidential audit program as soon as possible,” Neal said. If you don't want to release your returns then simply don't run for president or ask the public to employ you in high office. No one is forcing you. If he hasn't broken any laws, then what could his enemies do with the information to hurt him? It seems the only fear is of the truth being exposed.

Submitting tax returns to various entities is fairly routine for us plebs. Why should our president be any different? I don't see why being the target of a witch hunt makes him an exception. Yeah, there was a witch hunt, but that doesn't let him off the hook for lying about who he is. And I think the witch hunts are a good reason to not want him around, especially if witch hunts include biological warfare like the covid pandemic, which we know was engineered and it popped up in perfect time for the presidential election and targeted old conservatives while not harming young liberals. Anyway, he should be proud to show off his wealth. He's even gone so far as to pretend to be someone else in order to embellish his image https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html So if he had anything to brag about, he'd be bragging about it. Since he's going all the way to the supreme court to hide it speaks volumes. From one of his tax returns we learned he lost $1 billion on a casino. How does a real estate genius lose $1 billion on a casino??? He's a conman. In spite of 7 bankruptcies and practically every business he started has failed and now he's going to the supreme court to hide his tax returns, people still think he's a successful businessman. And I couldn't imagine telling a church congregation that I don't need to ask God for forgiveness because I try not to do anything wrong and then win their unanimous support. How did he do that? And on the Apprentice he portrayed himself as a good judge of character but then as president he appointed the slimiest swamp creatures he could find. So all the Apprentice shows were just another big con. The economic growth you use to justify him was mostly a continuation of what had been growing since 2009. I don't think presidents have much control over the economy, although he did manage to drive through a large tax cut for corporations which they used to buy back shares to inflate the prices of their personal shares. And his tariffs, which couldn't have been good for anyone. The employment numbers Trump said were a lie when he was campaigning, but once elected he used the same numbers to brag about his performance. So under Obama the employment numbers were a lie but under Trump the same numbers were spot on? He did the same with the stock market: under Obama it was a Big Fat Ugly Bubble, but under Trump it was a measure of how well he did. Under Obama he said the fed doing QE would destroy the country, but when he was president he begged the fed to do QE. I don't think I'm judging him unreasonably. Everything is there to be seen. I guess you have to be willing to see it.