The Crowhill Report - Content

Views and opinions on the news, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Sites endorsed by Crowhill:
Crowhill Publishing
The Krehbiel Report on Publishing@gregkrehbiel

Trump’s tax return genius

by Greg Krehbiel on 15 March 2017

I’m pretty sure Trump has just played Rachel Maddow for a fool.

Isn’t it odd that the one bit of Trump’s taxes anybody knows about is almost ancient history (from 2005), and shows him paying a lot in taxes? More (as a percentage) than Obama. More than Bernie Sanders.

It seems very convenient. It’s as if Trump went through decades of tax returns and picked the one that would show him in the most favorable light.

The result is that Maddow looks like a dope — spewing crazy conspiracy theories as she desperately tries to find some evidence of malfeasance — and the public now has it fixed in their mind that Trump makes a lot and pays a lot, so all this “show us the returns” stuff is going to be perceived as a bunch of noise.

“We’ve already seen his returns, and he pays a lot in taxes.”

From now on, if the press pushes the matter, Trump can claim that the press can’t be trusted with sensitive information, so why should he release anything?

And it wasn’t Sean Hannity that revealed it. It was crazy Rachel Maddow, his sworn enemy.

This was a stroke of genius.

2017-03-15  »  Greg Krehbiel

Talkback x 5

  1. William
    15 March 2017 @ 11:31 am

    I grant that his supporters may take the attitude you suggest. Yet, I don’t think his detractors will. Even if he releases his recent returns, I wouldn’t be surprised if they gave him a taste of his own medicine (relative to his Obama birther claims). Of course, many would know it has no merit but that might not stop a cadre who’d believe it regardless of evidence to the contrary–like the birthers.

  2. Ken Crawford
    15 March 2017 @ 5:29 pm

    William, you’re probably right, but that’s of little importance and something Trump shouldn’t (and probably doesn’t) worr about.

    We’re a pretty divided country and there’s 30% on either side that is going to demonize the other side and there’s nothing anyone can do to change that (at least in the short term). The key is how well one can do with that middle 40%.

    And the very interesting thing about that middle 40%, something that I think Trump realized better than most, is because it includes a pretty high percentage of people who don’t care that much and don’t want to think about it much They go with their first impression and it sticks pretty good. Thus the “we saw them and he paid a lot” will stick around with that group for a long time.

    (At least that’s how I see it.)

  3. Dave Krehbiel Dave Krehbiel
    15 March 2017 @ 5:52 pm

    @William: You feel there is a “cadre” of people who believe things regardless of, “evidence to the contrary”. I agree.

    Apparently these people are not, “fact-based”. An interesting question would be, how many of these people are out there?

  4. William
    15 March 2017 @ 5:58 pm

    @Ken, you raise an important point…the power of perception and influence. I wouldn’t underestimate how the middle can be influenced towards things that might appear unlikely or insignificant. After all, there is now legal same-sex marriage…a YUGE…change…initially championed by a small set of people that swayed the perceptions of the middle and politicians.

    In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%. Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown. Based on polling in 2016, a majority of Americans (55%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 37% who oppose it.

    Things are likely to turn out as you suggest. I just don’t know if it will be the slam-dunk that some might think. There’s always the slim chance that people act unpredictably…al la we now have a POTUS named Trump!

  5. William
    15 March 2017 @ 6:45 pm

    @Dave, wow…I can’t believe it…we seem to agree on something! Who knew? ;-). Yes, there can be a cadre of people who believe things regardless of evidence to the contrary.

    That said, given they aren’t “fact-based” can be a problem. It can sometimes lead people to making detrimental choices. I submit Exhibit A for review…