HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Guys: heads UP. New trend...

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 11:49 AM

Guys: heads UP. New trend now raising its ugly head. Thanks to trump:

I’m now noticing, and maybe in your own area you see this cancer metastasizing too?

trump refuses to release his tax returns. STILL, to this very day.

But now there are others trying this troublesome stunt too.

Matt Whitaker, trump’s idea of a good attorney general, is doing this, too. Dems are already saying they’re going to go for the tax returns HE’S trying to keep secret.

I also noticed with some concern a “near miss” here in Oregon where we now live. We had republi-CON Knute Buehler trying to unseat Governor Kate Brown. And Buehler, too, refused to release his tax returns. Fortunately, Kate Brown was re-elected.

But that’s THREE now. And those are merely the ones I happen to know about. Is this a trend of which we’re seeing the beginnings?

Is this something we need to start making noise about? It’s something that appears to be mainly a GOP thing. Should we start making this a national issue? And push for protections on a national basis?

And there was almost another one in Mitt Romney, who ran against President Obama in 2012, and almost had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cough up his tax returns. He finally gave in, but he sure didn’t want to. He tried to hold out for quite a long time.

Whaddya think?


63 replies, 7911 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply Guys: heads UP. New trend now raising its ugly head. Thanks to trump: (Original post)
calimary Nov 2018 OP
rickford66 Nov 2018 #1
Izzy Blue Nov 2018 #32
PatSeg Nov 2018 #2
JHB Nov 2018 #42
PatSeg Nov 2018 #56
Autumn Nov 2018 #3
George II Nov 2018 #7
Autumn Nov 2018 #8
dsc Nov 2018 #4
calimary Nov 2018 #6
Sunlei Nov 2018 #14
dsc Nov 2018 #27
Sunlei Nov 2018 #35
mastermind Nov 2018 #26
Cha Nov 2018 #58
Autumn Nov 2018 #12
elmac Nov 2018 #25
Autumn Nov 2018 #31
dsc Nov 2018 #34
Autumn Nov 2018 #36
dsc Nov 2018 #37
dsc Nov 2018 #33
Autumn Nov 2018 #40
dsc Nov 2018 #43
Autumn Nov 2018 #46
Cha Nov 2018 #57
elmac Nov 2018 #24
Baitball Blogger Nov 2018 #5
not_the_one Nov 2018 #9
Firestorm49 Nov 2018 #10
calimary Nov 2018 #63
Nasruddin Nov 2018 #11
Sunlei Nov 2018 #16
3Hotdogs Nov 2018 #19
Mr.Bill Nov 2018 #22
jberryhill Nov 2018 #30
Mr.Bill Nov 2018 #39
jberryhill Nov 2018 #47
Mr.Bill Nov 2018 #48
jberryhill Nov 2018 #50
jberryhill Nov 2018 #29
Sunlei Nov 2018 #13
PAMod Nov 2018 #15
jpak Nov 2018 #17
rgbecker Nov 2018 #18
JHB Nov 2018 #20
RockRaven Nov 2018 #21
Cheviteau Nov 2018 #23
Enoki33 Nov 2018 #28
SunSeeker Nov 2018 #38
Mopar151 Nov 2018 #41
stopdiggin Nov 2018 #44
calimary Nov 2018 #62
D23MIURG23 Nov 2018 #45
at140 Nov 2018 #51
Progressive Jones Nov 2018 #49
Mr.Bill Nov 2018 #53
MichMan Nov 2018 #52
GulfCoast66 Nov 2018 #60
MichMan Nov 2018 #61
blueinredohio Nov 2018 #54
Demovictory9 Nov 2018 #55
Amaryllis Nov 2018 #59

Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 12:00 PM

1. I thought it might be the masculine toilets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:28 PM

32. LOL! Looks like Whitaker wasn't

 

equipped enough to do a demonstration video..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 12:19 PM

2. And then Romney only released two years

of tax returns. Most people were sure he was hiding something by refusing to show returns from previous years. What really annoyed me was Romney knew he wanted to run for president for years, yet he was not prepared to be transparent about his finances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:43 PM

42. Yup. Wasn't even necessarily anything illegal, either...

...but something that would have damaged his base of support, like if he'd been shown to have shorted his tithe to the LDS church.

The casual acceptance of Romney's waffling paved the way for Trump blowing it off entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 07:43 PM

56. That's a good point

I remember Romney was reluctant to even release the two years that he did and his wife was really nasty about it, "That is all you people are going to get". He was a terrible candidate, painful to listen to watch and listen to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 12:27 PM

3. The DOJ is refusing to make Whitaker's financial disclosure reports public even though

they are legally required to release the forms he should have filed when he became a senior official in the DOJ over a year ago. Hiding financial information is really a thing in the Trump years, and it's scary.

https://hillreporter.com/doj-called-out-not-disclosing-matthew-whitaker-finances-14635



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:10 PM

7. Every Federal employee is required to file a personal financial disclosure. House and Senate...

....members' disclosures are public record that can be found online. Not sure about other Federal employees.

The shortcoming of those disclosures is that they have huge ranges for each category, i.e., reporting a mutual fund account only requires a range of value like $5,000 to $50,000.

If someone has ten such accounts, the total can be anywhere between $50,000 to $500,000 - doesn't tell us much about that person's true net worth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:23 PM

8. The point is. The DOJ and the Trump administration is refusing to make his financial

disclosure reports public which should have been done over a year ago. If you want to talk about the value or importance of the accounts instead of the DOJ and the Trump administration not doing what they are legally required to do please find someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 12:30 PM

4. remember neither Sanders nor Trump wound up having to release tax returns

Clinton would have never gotten away with this. Literally every single time she spoke the first sentence of coverage of her speech would be Clinton, who refuses to release her taxes, said The press was nothing short of derelict in its duty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 12:48 PM

6. Yeah. Forgot Sanders, too. That's FOUR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:40 PM

14. Sanders released 2014 income tax PLUS THIS https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/home/

He's a sitting Senator and has a financial disclosure for every year he's served.

United States Senate Financial Disclosures
https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/home/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:17 PM

27. Senate disclosure is loophole ridden and exceptionally vague

Trump filled out an equivalent form himself. It isn't remotely the same thing as releasing his tax returns. He released one year and repeatedly had excuses for releasing 2015 and never even promised to do any prior to 2014. In point of fact Trump actually has a greater number of tax returns released than Sanders does since two if his were leaked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:31 PM

35. I read somewhere Trumps in constant IRS audit. I really think these people who

"take" much more IRS time should PAY A FEE if their return is over the 5-8 standard forms.

some info is public like real estate. check out trumps name in the counties he owns property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:16 PM

26. hmmmm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 19, 2018, 01:10 AM

58. Yep.. that's FOUR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:35 PM

12. Sanders didn't win the nomination and that's when the tax returns have

traditionally been released by the nominee. During the primary the Sanders did release their 2014 tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:14 PM

25. Bernie haters don't relize that they are helping the fascist pig republicans

 

or maybe they just don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elmac (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:24 PM

31. It was pointed out in another post that there is a financial disclosure for every year

he has served that is available. I've always ignored that noise, he would have given them their tax returns had he won the nomination. Just another excuse.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211446400#post14

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #31)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:31 PM

34. which Trump also filled out

his disclosure form is the same one Sanders and all senators fill out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:33 PM

36. They released their 2014 tax returns. He would have released more had he won the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #36)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:38 PM

37. He released fewer returns than

Rubio, Cruz, and O'Malley 5 years each

Bush 33

Clinton in 08 7 years (and that is without the credit she should get for the ones she and Bill both released)

He was in the primaries longer than all of those but Clinton in 08. Also I don't recall him ever saying he would release any before 2014 he only promised to release going forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elmac (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:29 PM

33. I have a problem with blatant gender based double standards

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:42 PM

40. Wouldn't Hillary's have also been included in with Bills that were released from 1992- 1999

during his presidency? If I remember correctly from those years they filed jointly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #40)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:46 PM

43. yes but of course she gets no credit for those being a woman and all

every single return of hers is public between 1974 and 2015.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:57 PM

46. Well I give her credit for 1992-2015 and probably more while Bill was Governor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elmac (Reply #25)

Mon Nov 19, 2018, 01:00 AM

57. Tell that to BS every time he insults my Democratic Party.

calling them "elite" and "weak".. etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:13 PM

24. I think Fox news spread this rumor quite a bit

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 12:30 PM

5. Maybe a new trend on the national level.

Everything you're seeing on a national level has been tried at a local level, successfully.

This isn't a question of trickle-down corrupt practices. What you're seeing is the emergence of local politics trying to infiltrate the federal level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:25 PM

9. I saw "trend" and thought "fashion"

 

and envisioned a new trend of men wearing red ties down to their knees...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:27 PM

10. Releasing tax returns should be mandated by law - period.

Why? It could expose people as the crooks that they really are, and in these troubling times, that’s more important than ever - Whittaker being a prime example. If we want leaders, not con men (Trump) to run the country, then we need mandatory Release of AUDITED tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firestorm49 (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 28, 2018, 02:44 AM

63. DEFINITELY.

It's a key way to know who really "owns" these people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:34 PM

11. Amendment needed

We need full medical and financial disclosure before any appointed or elected
person can take a federal office. The amendment should be in simple language
and left to Congress to implement with a law. (One can foresee the details will
change radically in 50 years.) The scope of this is up to the law - the ones at the
top obviously need complete scrutiny, but whether a lowly commissioner somewhere
needs to be subjected to that level of openness is matter for debate. On balance
I personally would prefer disclosure only for top level officials.

Security clearance for top officials is another question.

It would be more useful if disclosures happened BEFORE elections for elected
officers. How that could be done has to be in the domain of voting reforms, and
probably is a job for states to implement.

States should have a similar program. Some probably do. Would be useful to know more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasruddin (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:43 PM

16. don't worry the extensive 'background checks' the political parties do reveal everything.

Like the 'steel dossier' Republican party ordered on Mr Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasruddin (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:50 PM

19. Yeah, Trumps's physician released Trump's medical report.

People got to vote for him, knowing he would enter the White House as the healthiest president ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasruddin (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:57 PM

22. I agree, but the medical thing could be tricky.

Any medical report would only be as good as the doctor who signed it. We've seen this with Trump's medical reports already. They were both signed by doctors and were a complete joke. Even two doctors of the highest integrity could have different opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:23 PM

30. So, whether a woman candidate has had an abortion should be public?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:40 PM

39. WTF?

Where did I say that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #39)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 03:14 PM

47. The proposition is "full medical and financial disclosure"

 


The poster above stated we should have “full medical and financial disclosure”. Your additional concern seemed to be that a favorable doctor to the candidate might not be entirely candid.

Certainly whether a single female candidate is taking birth control would be part of any “full medical and financial disclosure”.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #47)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 04:06 PM

48. So now it's birth control and not abortion?

I am interested in the physical well being of the candidate at the present time. I would only be interested in their medical past as it may relate to that present physical well being. For instance, if they have had cancer and any recurrence of it. We don't even know Trump's blood pressure or weight. Or height for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #48)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 04:21 PM

50. It's both

 


Perhaps we need a definition of “full medical disclosure”.

Even if we limit to “current condition” I assume they would include, at a minimum, a list of current medications.

This information will, of course be of interest to any potential foreign adversary since any particular physical vulnerabilities of elected officials will be known to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nasruddin (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:23 PM

29. Yes - women should publicly disclose whether they've had an abortion

 


Not.

Bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:36 PM

13. They don't have to, it's not required. They don't want to show how they pay no income tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:41 PM

15. Add to that list, trash mogul Scott Wagner...

...who got trounced in his race to unseat PA Gov Tom Wolf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:47 PM

17. Maine republican gubernatorial candidate Shawn Moody did that

and he lost.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:49 PM

18. "Lock her Up!" ......er, "Release those tax returns!"

Time change the dialog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:52 PM

20. This is not "thanks to Trump". It is "thanks to Mitt, thanks to Republicans"

In 1968 George Romney, then governor of Michigan and vying for the Republican presidential nomination released 12 years of tax returns. He did so because, he said, "one year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul." This set the precedent that had become customary until 2012.

In 2012, Romney's own son, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, waffled on the release. He pointedly resisted it, said it was nobody else's business, and finally made a show of acquiescing to precedent by releasing one year and a partial year's returns. Both were within the time span in which the IRS allows amendments, so both could potentially be revised after they had been publicly released.

And since Romney was the favored candidate of the Republican establishment, they were OK with that.

When 2016 rolled around and Trump had taken top spot, since the Republicans had already demonstrated they didn't care about a candidate's finances, he blew it off completely.

Lay the blame where it belongs: Republicans don't care, because it might (probably would) get in the way of their guy winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 01:57 PM

21. Democrats need a long-term 50 state strategy on this, but it is fix-able.

First, Democrats need to agree on the standard. Is it 2 years, 5 years, 10 year? What is X?

Because elections are run by the states, states need to pass laws requiring public disclosure of X years of tax returns for any person to appear on the ballot for any office.

At first, this will only happen in D controlled states like in the northeast and west coast. Candidates like Trump will just write-off CA, for example, and not care that they aren't on the ballot there -- they weren't going to win anyway.

But every time Dems regain control over a purple/swing state, they should pass the law. These kinds of laws are like a ratchet -- much easier to go one way than the other. Removing or altering this law looks as corrupt as sh*t. The GOP may succeed in removing the law a few times in a few places, but over the long term, the trend should go in the direction of more required disclosure. And there will be a tipping point.

Obviously some Dems don't want to release tax returns either, but if the voters make passing this kind of law a priority, they will start losing primaries because of their obstructionism on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:08 PM

23. Solution?

Since states set the rules for elections, all it would take is for two or maybe three states to require candidates for federal offices to release their tax information in order to get their name on the ballot. States could set their own rules for state and local elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:23 PM

28. I too live in Oregon, and Bueler's refusal to show his tax returns immediately

triggered a what’s he hiding reaction. Seems he makes it a practice of overcharging in his business, and apparently has quite a few LLCs to hide it. Release of tax returns should be mandatory for those seeking positions of public trust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:39 PM

38. Anyone running for public office should be required to release 7 years of tax returns.

And they should be required to release them upon making the announcement they are running or airing a political ad supporting their candidacy, whichever occurs first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:42 PM

41. Put the political horsepower for Full Federal Disclosure

into NH state law. "The Primary" is our martinet Secretary of State's only child. He would LOVE the pre-primary groveling by "Organized Money", and it would fit right in to local lore as "Not up to Rummney standards!"

"Bill" Gardner (NH SOS) hauled 7 particularly annoying "Birther" legislators into his office for a thorough ass chewing in 2011, after they made a big scene about "petitioning for an investigation". Good for Bill!

Disclosure: My wife's parking space (state library) once adjoined Bill Gardner's. Martinet is a kindness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:48 PM

44. Sorry, NOPE

"Is this something we need to start making noise about?"

The short answer here is, NO. Regrettably. Say that because I've found that among the things that your average guy (joe sixpack) DOES have concerns about .. pussy grabbing, embarrassment on the world stage, cozying up to dictators, voter suppression, "enemy" media, skinheads in the white house, (and on) .. the "tax return" thing just has almost zero traction. And to go further, a lot of middle of the road folks out there kind of lean towards tax returns being a "private" thing. When push comes to shove, they might well be inclined to say, "it's really none of your, or my, business." In short, right now it is NOT a winning issue.

Now that MIGHT change, if the swamp/dumpster fire that is the Trump family's financial dealings gets a thorough airing through the Muller (and other?) investigations. AND if from those revelations average joe starts to draw a connection between the rampant corruption, the tax swindles and financial rot, ties to the Russian mafia, the attack on "truth" and the media, and the dismemberment of the American political system. Perhaps then. But right as of this moment .. I don't think average joe is getting it .. and, as such, I think it's a non-starter.

So, if we're looking to win elections ...

Let's concentrate today on the fact that shortly after the mid-term elections (in the year 2018!), the Republicans and the Trump administration has found a new way to go after .. wait for it .. CONTRACEPTION!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stopdiggin (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 28, 2018, 02:41 AM

62. Welcome to DU, stopdiggin.

One point you made is quite on-the-mark: all things HEALTH CARE. Contraception being just one of many aspects. Health care was a top issue that definitely helped us flip the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 02:56 PM

45. I think we need a law making release mandatory for any appointee or candidate for public office.

The IRS should be mandated to release them a soon as a candidate accepts an appointment, or a candidate qualifies to appear on a ballot. That should cut down on the number of career criminals who rise through the ranks of the repuke party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to D23MIURG23 (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 04:30 PM

51. Correct! Without a legal requirements, those who have something

to hide, will not release them. All elected candidates should be required to release their tax returns for at least past 5 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 04:19 PM

49. Can the IRS be served with a subpoena for tax returns? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive Jones (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 04:40 PM

53. Yes, I think so. I'm sure Mueller has Trump's.

And your doctor can be served with a subpoena for your medical records that everyone thinks are so protected by secrecy. I served on a Grand Jury for two years and we had to power to subpoena medical records. I am sworn to lifetime secrecy so I can't tell you if we did, but we had the power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 04:36 PM

52. Not just tax returns

I would also include medical history, military records, birth certificates, & college transcripts in light of complete transparency

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 19, 2018, 02:01 AM

60. Medical history!! WTF

So if a woman has had an abortion or anyone treated for a STD you want that released?

Fuck that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #60)

Mon Nov 19, 2018, 08:30 AM

61. What about mental issues like paranoia, dementia or things like major heart disease....

….. should candidates be able to hide it from voters or should we be informed before voting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 04:54 PM

54. Yep this should be a priority when dems take over. Make it a law.

In every state for every race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 04:56 PM

55. show us those tax returns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2018, 01:23 AM

59. My memory is foggy on this, but i remember something about CA planning to make it a requirement for

running for office that the candidate's tax returns are released, or was it just the presidential race? ANyone remember the particulars on this? I think they were working on a bill...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread