Hersh Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: Bernie Sanders was all about transparency. Didn't release his 2015 tax returns. No outrage during campaign. He released his 2014 tax returns. Do you know if his 2015 tax returns were done while he was running? I know every year I need an extension and mine aren't done until September/October. PS- Sanders was questioned and criticized for not releasing in a timely fashion and not releasing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zazzaro703 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 14 hours ago, boobiemiles said: What gives? Trump want to make all these new policies and no one know if he is divested in any foreign holdings. Why is the media and Americans not outraged over his lack of transparency? There should be many questions about it. He would have disclosed them already if there wasn't something or many things to hide. MSM would rather argue over crowd sizes. I too would like to see if there are conflicts of interest but he doesn't have to release them if he doesn't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 41 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: Also, where is the outrage that Bernie Sanders never released his 2015 tax return? He released his 2014 returns. He said he would release his 2015 returns when Hillary released her Goldman-Sachs speech transcripts. He didn't receive the nomination and the matter faded away. How exactly is this comparable to Trumps position and why would there be any outrage over Sanders' actions? It's clearly a very different scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, Hersh said: He released his 2014 tax returns. Do you know if his 2015 tax returns were done while he was running? I know every year I need an extension and mine aren't done until September/October. My point was selective outrage. There is no legal obligation. Even if he says he will release them and never does, he hasn't violated anything besides his words. Politicians say **** all the time they never follow through on. Par for the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Popeman38 said: My point was selective outrage. There is no legal obligation. Even if he says he will release them and never does, he hasn't violated anything besides his words. Politicians say **** all the time they never follow through on. Par for the course. I edited mine. Sanders was questioned and criticized for not releasing more. I wonder how many lies are too many before you object? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Zazzaro703 said: MSM would rather argue over crowd sizes. There have been a ton of articles on Trump's business holdings - especially his foreign holdings - the emoluments clause, his charitable contributions and their legality, and his refusal to release his taxes. But yeah, that stupid ol' monolithic MSM can't stop talking about crowd sizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Just now, TryTheBeal! said: He released his 2014 returns. He said he would release his 2015 returns when Hillary released her Goldman-Sachs speech transcripts. He didn't receive the nomination and the matter faded away. How exactly is this comparable to Trumps position and why would there be any outrage over Sanders' actions. It's clearly a very different scenario. I can play this game too. One of the (many) times Trump said he would release his returns when Hillary released all the deleted emails. Look, I don't like him. But there is no law forcing him to release his returns. Ever.Change these rules, and then this won't ever happen. Until then, this is partisan outrage/manufactured outrage. 3 minutes ago, Hersh said: I edited mine. Sanders was questioned and criticized for not releasing more. I wonder how many lies are too many before you object? I objected to Trump the moment he entered the race. That's why I said I feel very dirty defending him. I have a 6 year old daughter. Supporting Trump, IMHO, is incompatible with that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Plus, last checked, I don't believe Sanders have his name on hotels and golf courses all over the world. Plus, he wasn't elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 307,173 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, DM72 said: Plus, last checked, I don't believe Sanders have his name on hotels and golf courses all over the world. Plus, he wasn't elected. So the standard is if you aren't a well known global businessman and only a candidate, it's ok? I remember Trump getting questioned at debates, by the moderators, for not releasing them. GADDAMMIT you guys are making me defend The Oompa in Chief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Modern tradition (of the last 9 GOP nominees) was to release them. Going against that tradition should always bring negative attention..especially even more so from a candidate who ran on a drain the swamp platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: So the standard is if you aren't a well known global businessman and only a candidate, it's ok? I remember Trump getting questioned at debates, by the moderators, for not releasing them. GADDAMMIT you guys are making me defend The Oompa in Chief. I don't believe anyone has argued that he has a legal responsibility to release his taxes. But what people want to know is if theirs some conflict of interest. Is he in the position to line his own pockets? I think we have a right to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: So the standard is if you aren't a well known global businessman and only a candidate, it's ok? I remember Trump getting questioned at debates, by the moderators, for not releasing them. GADDAMMIT you guys are making me defend The Oompa in Chief. Actually, what you are defending is a false equivalency. And you can stop doing that at any time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 There is no legal requirement for a nominee to have ever voted in an election. But knowing that they have never voted (or repeatedly missed voting) should be something that the public knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Popeman38 said: So the standard is if you aren't a well known global businessman and only a candidate, it's ok? I remember Trump getting questioned at debates, by the moderators, for not releasing them. GADDAMMIT you guys are making me defend The Oompa in Chief. He's free to refuse to release his tax returns. That frees us to speculate on why he refuses. I suspect he charged those Russian prostitutes on his Amex Gold Card and wrote it off as a business expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said: The modern American nominee does. Every GOP one since Nixon has (although Ford didn't but he wasn't a nominee). I suspect this can be achieved by the states in that they can pass a bill to require full disclosure if Presidential candidates want to be on the ballot. If only 1 or 2 big states (like California or Texas does it)..then it forces the nominees hands. The problem with unwritten rules........they aren't written and therefore don't actually exist. 11 minutes ago, Dan T. said: 307,173 Can you start posting it as a percentage of population? That would be more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Just now, TheGreatBuzz said: The problem with unwritten rules........they aren't written and therefore don't actually exist. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I really don't care that he hasn't paid tax or what deductions he's taken as long as he's within the law of doing so (which I'm sure he is....except potentially for certain "charitable contributions" but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt).... I really care about the conflicts of interest he has and what potential liabilities he has to foreign powers that compromise him as our commander in chief...I would think everyone would care about that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Can you start posting it as a percentage of population? That would be more interesting. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 The White House "We The People" petition Web site began in September 2011. It was determined then that any petition receiving 5,000 signatures or more within 30 days of posting merited a White House response. That number was very quickly raised to 25,000 in October 2011. On January 15, 2013, the number required for a White House response was raised to 100,000. That's where it stands today. We shall see if the Trump administration raises that number, ignores the petitions that reach the threshold, or does away with the petition Web site altogether. In the meantime: 308,265 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/immediately-release-donald-trumps-full-tax-returns-all-information-needed-verify-emoluments-clause-compliance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 IMO, equating Trump not releasing returns vs Sanders not releasing 2015 (but releasing his 2014), is like... equating the Russian President peeing on the Statue of Liberty to my toddler peeing on a bush in the public park (I'm guessing someone will argue that point, which will hopefully be funny) mock outrage, it's only an "unwritten rule", etc. feels like a 'forest for the trees' kind of thing. I mean, is there any law saying the President should put America's interests above their own? Is there a law against lifting sanctions on a country highly antagonistic towards democracy that has invaded one democracy, meddled in the elections and laws of others (to improve a President's portfolio)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zazzaro703 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 36 minutes ago, Dan T. said: There have been a ton of articles on Trump's business holdings - especially his foreign holdings - the emoluments clause, his charitable contributions and their legality, and his refusal to release his taxes. But yeah, that stupid ol' monolithic MSM can't stop talking about crowd sizes. Oh I'm sorry Dan the MSM always reports with accuracy, focuses on what matters, doesn't have bias and agenda driven reporting, never makes the news instead of reporting on it and does their job well. Trumps first couple days on the job and the crowd size for his inauguration was what was mainly being reported and talked about. Nevermind the people breaking windows, assaulting people celebrating democracy and various other immature behavior. Had Clinton won and Trump supporters were acting out like that they would have been labeled nazi terrorists and all over the news. The last poll I saw had 32% polled saying they had a great or fair amount of trust in the MSM and it was just exposed how these clowns were working hand in hand with the DNC and Clinton Campaign. So excuse me if I'd rather see a tax return instead of reading some drivel being reporting by CNN. If he doesn't release them, that's his choice and his business but that doesn't mean I can't prefer that he does. He has already said he pays as little tax as possible because he doesn't like what they do with the money and said he would release them, so what's the holdup unless he is still under an audit? "I don't mind releasing," he said during his first president debate with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. "I'm under a routine audit. And it'll be released. And as soon as the audit's finished, it will be released." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 On January 24, 2017 at 2:15 PM, TheGreatBuzz said: 308,265 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 10 minutes ago, Dan T. said: Let me amend my answer from "no" to this: At present, approximately 1 of every 100 citizens in the United States has signed the petition. [U.S. population 318,900,000] [Signees 308,265] Your math is a little off I believe (and that is me politely saying you're wrong). You didn't carry the decimal far enough. 1% of the population number you used would be 3,189,000. I used the population as of July 4th 2016 per the government census website of 323,148,587. I got 0.09534% of america. So not even 1/10th of 1 percent care enough to just sign a petition. Numbers are fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, Zazzaro703 said: Oh I'm sorry Dan the MSM always reports with accuracy, focuses on what matters, doesn't have bias and agenda driven reporting, never makes the news instead of reporting on it and does their job well. Trumps first couple days on the job and the crowd size for his inauguration was what was mainly being reported and talked about. Nevermind the people breaking windows, assaulting people celebrating democracy and various other immature behavior. Me: How do you know people broke windows and assaulted people? Zazzaro: It was all over the news. Me: You see what I did there? Zazzaro: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.