I think this is a valid issue. No candidate is perfect, so these things must be weighed in the big picture. But still, it seems fundamentally wrong to me for the government to take property from one and give it to another just for the purpose of collecting more taxes.
Of course its a valid issue. All candidates have to face questions about their past and many will face much older questions. Trump has been a celebrity for 30 years and has a container ship full of ammo following him around.
Hell, I remember FReepers happily beating up on Rick Santorum’s wife for dating a doctor in college who later performed abortions. Herman Cain and a supposed past affair. Michele Bachmann and her history of Migraines. The pics of Newt & Nancy sure weren’t out of bounds.
I guess Donald Trump’s blaming Pam Geller for the Garland terror attack is also “ancient history”.
They seriously believe your earnings are rightly government's wealth even before you have earned the money and that's why they make the peculiar argument that "tax cuts cost government."
They also believe that all land is government property and thus can be taken at any time if you are not in their eyes as productive towards their goals because land equates to tax revenue. If your choice of land use brings in less revenue than Trump's use would, then you are "robbing" the government.
It IS a valid issue. The right to own property is at the heart of individual freedom.