Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
228 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What is the difference between Hillary's transcripts and Bernie's IRS taxes? (Original Post) ViseGrip Apr 2016 OP
It's all they got. djean111 Apr 2016 #1
It IS all they got. And you know they have looked and looked. yourpaljoey Apr 2016 #4
They even became stalkers over the plane flight to the Vatican. Fawke Em Apr 2016 #60
Good for you. . . .thanks from everyone. pdsimdars Apr 2016 #84
Holy shit....you are scary. Please add the tinfoil hat to these posts. Nt pkdu Apr 2016 #154
The tax returns go directly to the candidate's adherence to the law of the land. MADem Apr 2016 #2
This scscholar Apr 2016 #12
Yes opinions change, and Hillary Clinton's opinions change EXTREMELY often Dragonfli Apr 2016 #13
But TAX RETURNS are a declaration to the government. MADem Apr 2016 #15
. Dragonfli Apr 2016 #16
Yeah, it sucks when the bottom line is that your candidate is not being transparent. MADem Apr 2016 #22
I see what you're doing (talk about transparent) Dragonfli Apr 2016 #25
No, you don't. The US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not require that MADem Apr 2016 #28
Easy on the truth MADem, they can't handle the truth. oasis Apr 2016 #74
13.4 percent's worth of truth. If everyone paid as few taxes as Berrrnie, you wouldn't be able to MADem Apr 2016 #76
If Bernie is hiding his tax info, it should be addressed. nt oasis Apr 2016 #81
DING DING DING!! uponit7771 Apr 2016 #121
Don't let facts get in your way hueymahl Apr 2016 #202
All of his assets are in his wife's name--why do you suppose that is? MADem Apr 2016 #204
Estate planning? hueymahl Apr 2016 #207
I think if he didn't cut that shit loose, he'd be a millionaire...and ya can't have that, can ya? MADem Apr 2016 #208
You are a piece of work hueymahl Apr 2016 #210
Do you even look at the garbage you write? MADem Apr 2016 #211
You sure are acting angry hueymahl Apr 2016 #215
I am not--but YOU keep getting personal with me and calling me names. MADem Apr 2016 #223
Good luck with the rest of your day hueymahl Apr 2016 #226
that is so awesome. Viva_La_Revolution Apr 2016 #35
Well, I have tried not to use ignore very often and still only have perhaps a dozen on ignore Dragonfli Apr 2016 #43
You have grown from a Conservative Democrat I sometimes disagreed with, but fairly decent Dragonfli Apr 2016 #29
Yeah, and you have no argument, so you make it about MEEEEEEEEE. MADem Apr 2016 #122
PREACH!!!!! Happy Friday!!!! n/t asuhornets Apr 2016 #216
Backatcha!!!!! MADem Apr 2016 #219
So was her oath as SOS. JudyM Apr 2016 #196
So would you be OK with Ted Cruz not releasing his tax returns? anigbrowl Apr 2016 #47
You are stating something as fact that is only rumor that he "will not release his tax returns" Dragonfli Apr 2016 #50
It's a simple yes or no question anigbrowl Apr 2016 #62
"Will you stop beating your wife" is also a yes or no answer, one I also wouldn't answer tho. Dragonfli Apr 2016 #64
The two are nothing alike as you well know. anigbrowl Apr 2016 #70
You are quite the ventriloquist Dragonfli Apr 2016 #73
Actually I quoted the same piece of text that you did... anigbrowl Apr 2016 #85
I think they would've uncovered if he broke the law YES, that answers the question re my words fully Dragonfli Apr 2016 #96
But .... but .... (Shirley Temple POUT) .... "It's Oooh Kaaaay if it's BERRRRRRNIE!!!!" MADem Apr 2016 #75
$50,000 in deductions is not distilled water. KittyWampus Apr 2016 #55
Thanks for reminding me, unlike the other poster now on ignore, you have always been abrassive Dragonfli Apr 2016 #61
That's not a bad thing either, people need to change for the better uponit7771 Apr 2016 #111
But changing so often both for the better and the worse and so very often shows little but Dragonfli Apr 2016 #116
The opposite is worse of the two uponit7771 Apr 2016 #117
Flexible adherence to a moral compass that does not waver or compromise moral values is best. Dragonfli Apr 2016 #119
Sept Sanders isn't flexible at all, matter of fact he's more dogmatic seeing there are few practical uponit7771 Apr 2016 #120
He is flexible, just not with his morality 109 economists including Robert Reich disagree regarding Dragonfli Apr 2016 #123
No he's not, well... until he see's he's going to totally lose a demographic... then he becomes uponit7771 Apr 2016 #124
sigh, you should have read my full post, not that the truth matters in a big Donor corporate Dragonfli Apr 2016 #126
That's what you're going with? "Opinions change?" morningfog Apr 2016 #86
I think the transcripts are going to disappoint the hell out of you eager beavers. MADem Apr 2016 #143
I really don't care about the transcripts, it's just a good issue to hammer. morningfog Apr 2016 #147
It's just a good issue to hammer. MADem Apr 2016 #149
I try. morningfog Apr 2016 #153
LMAO!!! basselope Apr 2016 #118
Yeah, I do. MADem Apr 2016 #145
LOL basselope Apr 2016 #150
We shall see--but don't act like you "know" -- because you don't. MADem Apr 2016 #152
I know enough to know there is absolutely nothing suspicious. basselope Apr 2016 #167
That's why Jane started sweating like a confidence man caught out on MSNBC when she was asked MADem Apr 2016 #168
Wow. The stuff people see when they are desperate. basselope Apr 2016 #173
Highly contested elections--are you high? He has only had one really tough election in recent MADem Apr 2016 #174
LMAO basselope Apr 2016 #180
You've never seen a GOP attack ad, obviously. You're YOUNG? MADem Apr 2016 #213
Seen many of them. basselope Apr 2016 #217
Well, Mike Dukakis and John Kerry do disagree with you, you know. MADem Apr 2016 #218
LOL. basselope Apr 2016 #222
Oh yeah, all those "progressives" voted for George Bush? Listen to you! MADem Apr 2016 #224
They didn't vote for Bush. They voted 3rd party. basselope Apr 2016 #225
Oh, yeah, sure!!! That must mean that "progressives" make up, what--two percent of the electorate? MADem Apr 2016 #227
Yes, feel the math. basselope Apr 2016 #228
Tax returns go to the IRS beedle Apr 2016 #140
Maybe, just maybe, Jane doesn't want the 4th Estate to pull those Schedule A items apart. MADem Apr 2016 #142
Maybe, beedle Apr 2016 #146
Sanders admitted she files extensions often, and amends as well. MADem Apr 2016 #148
Clintons ommitted whole shell companies beedle Apr 2016 #170
That's a garbage cite--no link. Talks about "financial reports" -- not tax returns. Stop conflating MADem Apr 2016 #172
so do FBI investigations AgerolanAmerican Apr 2016 #176
Oooooooooh (Shirley Temple Pout)! You are gonna be Soooooooo MAD when nothing comes of that! MADem Apr 2016 #177
Omg, your candidate appears to have sold weapons in exchange for foundation donations & you expect JudyM Apr 2016 #195
and Jane Sanders has committed to providing his new return as soon as it's completed, elleng Apr 2016 #3
The IRS will provide a copy of your full return for a fee. MADem Apr 2016 #6
Sure they could afford it, elleng Apr 2016 #10
Actually, the campaign is paying for their room and board, so MADem Apr 2016 #17
Who suggested I think they are 'donating to this campaign?' elleng Apr 2016 #20
YOU said THIS: MADem Apr 2016 #23
End this, please. elleng Apr 2016 #27
Bullshit. Jane has adult children who can go get that stuff for her. MADem Apr 2016 #32
I'm not interested in hillary's schedule a's, elleng Apr 2016 #36
You sure as hell would be if she DIDN'T RELEASE THEM. MADem Apr 2016 #38
you are claiming the campaign is paying their mortgage now? Viva_La_Revolution Apr 2016 #37
Where in hell did you get that notion? MADem Apr 2016 #39
in what fairy land do the bills back home stop because you are traveling? Viva_La_Revolution Apr 2016 #45
The electric bill goes down to nothing. If you're not paying to fill the fridge, but instead, MADem Apr 2016 #46
Weak Sauce, up and down mrdmk Apr 2016 #135
now you sound uneducated. FEC rules, you MUST spend campaign money on campaign ViseGrip Apr 2016 #92
That's just absurd. They are not "required to live off the campaign." That's pure NONSENSE. MADem Apr 2016 #129
And it takes several weeks to obtain the return from the IRS JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #127
If she'd ordered them when people started crabbing, instead of making mealy-mouthed excuses, MADem Apr 2016 #128
If you say so. I think I'll reserve judgement until I have some, ya know, facts. JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #130
Here's one fact for you - 13.4 %; wouldn't it be nice to pay so little in income tax? MADem Apr 2016 #131
I paid less, so that would not be great. JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #133
With receipts like these, Sanders isn't going to be able to send people to flower arranging classes, MADem Apr 2016 #134
Huh? No idea what you are saying. JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #137
If one percenters are contributing so little to the coffers, Sanders will not be able to send people MADem Apr 2016 #139
Taxes will be raised. Pretty simple. I am ok with that. JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #141
LOL--really? Bernie's gonna make that sale to a GOP congress? MADem Apr 2016 #144
Why are you shitting on beauticians and florists? SwampG8r Apr 2016 #183
I'm not "shitting on" them. But it costs less to train up in those jobs than it does to attend uni MADem Apr 2016 #192
Just keep shitting on folks then i guess SwampG8r Apr 2016 #198
Keep missing the point, then! See how that works? nt MADem Apr 2016 #199
Christ, Jane said she does them on TurboTax, COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #155
The topic of discussion was getting returns from the IRS. I said nothing of Turbotax. JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #158
The point is that some had made the excuse that they COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #189
Are you seriously saying the main barrier is Jane's inability to physically access a filing cabinet? anigbrowl Apr 2016 #48
the real difference is that Jane had said that they will be released....Hillary won't say that,,,, virtualobserver Apr 2016 #52
Nobody but Bernie supporters care about the transcripts anigbrowl Apr 2016 #63
You are right, her transcripts tell us what she really believes when she talks to big business...... virtualobserver Apr 2016 #66
Complete nonsense anigbrowl Apr 2016 #80
This isn't about what is in her "heart of hearts"....The smoking gun is the secrecy itself. virtualobserver Apr 2016 #95
Not seeing it anigbrowl Apr 2016 #97
The money and the lack of transparency would be fine if she wasn't running for President....... virtualobserver Apr 2016 #100
The hyperbole is sort of ridiculous anigbrowl Apr 2016 #105
Hillary Clinton....the first incorruptible politician..... virtualobserver Apr 2016 #107
When you have to make up statements to attribute them to your opponent... anigbrowl Apr 2016 #110
I am just expressing what you are claiming,,they gave her millions and it won't affect her decsions virtualobserver Apr 2016 #112
No you're not. nt anigbrowl Apr 2016 #114
so then you are saying that the money will affect her decisions. Either it will or it won't. virtualobserver Apr 2016 #115
Au contrarie, if HRC supporters actually saw those transcripts she would have a lot less FighttheFuture Apr 2016 #82
And you know this how? anigbrowl Apr 2016 #87
There have been leeks, but WE don't go with that, we want confirmation. pdsimdars Apr 2016 #90
So no answer then anigbrowl Apr 2016 #99
Were those leeks in a soup??? COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #156
The Welsh make a fine leek soup! Oh, I could eat that stuff all day! nt MADem Apr 2016 #175
Me too! COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #186
She was not at GS et. al. for the food. So, Until she releases them, if ever, I will assume the FighttheFuture Apr 2016 #106
Well at least you are honest about being irrational anigbrowl Apr 2016 #108
This is why people like you get everyone else fucked in the ass! FighttheFuture Apr 2016 #194
uh huh anigbrowl Apr 2016 #197
What I see is government politicians being bought for pennies on the dollar. It it FighttheFuture Apr 2016 #206
Wrong again Bob. The only people who don't care about them are Hillary supporters pdsimdars Apr 2016 #89
No doubt you have evidence to back up this claim anigbrowl Apr 2016 #94
Jane said they were on TurboTax. No need to go home. Just a simple click of button. KittyWampus Apr 2016 #56
Hillary & her followers can't find real dirt. This is all they have... nt revbones Apr 2016 #5
Oh yeah? Why didn't they release these stinkers months ago? MADem Apr 2016 #8
The sad, ugly end will be in November, when your candidate loses because she's Fawke Em Apr 2016 #65
My candidate won't lose, and your candidate's supporters can either be a part of history or stand to MADem Apr 2016 #68
Agree. Hillary needs to release the transcripts now. Dawgs Apr 2016 #69
"Transcripts" are not mandated government documents. Tax returns are. MADem Apr 2016 #72
Bernie has promised to release. If he's a cheat then we will know. Dawgs Apr 2016 #78
$50,000 in deductions? Exposing a hypocrite who pretends to be pure KittyWampus Apr 2016 #58
I think he should offer a trade at the debate: TCJ70 Apr 2016 #7
Well Said. Ferd Berfel Apr 2016 #9
Also the transcript issue has been ongoing now for months longer than dana_b Apr 2016 #11
He has no transcripts for Wall Street speaches. but pdsimdars Apr 2016 #91
yep! dana_b Apr 2016 #93
No transcripts have never been released tax returns have MattP Apr 2016 #14
And he has had "failure to disclose" problems in the past, that are documented. MADem Apr 2016 #19
No, they have not. That is categorically false. KittyWampus Apr 2016 #59
taxes are required by law. personal opinions given to bored people eating lousy food are not nt msongs Apr 2016 #18
Releasing tax returns has become a normal part of Presidential candidate politics for decades SFnomad Apr 2016 #21
And no others spoke to banking entities that broke our country, and got bailed out. ViseGrip Apr 2016 #34
You can come up with any excuse you want, but that still doesn't change the fact SFnomad Apr 2016 #41
That's a disingenuous statement. BillZBubb Apr 2016 #136
You're the one being disingenuous SFnomad Apr 2016 #169
Bullshit. You ignore the AMOUNTS of money. Those fees were huge and unprecedented. BillZBubb Apr 2016 #181
What, no presidential candidate has ever spoken to an audience of bankers before? anigbrowl Apr 2016 #49
Geez, are you pretending to not get it or are you just incapable of getting it? BillZBubb Apr 2016 #138
There is nothing to get anigbrowl Apr 2016 #191
Bernie and Jane will release anything from their tax returns that people want to see BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #24
When??? COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #157
I think we are missing something else of great importance here. Avalux Apr 2016 #26
Jane is capable to do their own, she is a smart lady. ViseGrip Apr 2016 #30
Regular One Percenters, you mean. nt MADem Apr 2016 #40
No, she does what millions of Anericans do every year. COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #160
"Transcripts involve the shaping of US policy?" yallerdawg Apr 2016 #31
Ohhhhh NO! Have you forgotten Romney's speech he didn't want us to hear? ViseGrip Apr 2016 #42
I don't need to hear Republican speeches. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #44
Hillary and Bill are DINOs. Fawke Em Apr 2016 #67
Naw, Illimunati are the B Team. The Bildergerg Group is where the real COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #161
Nothing, if we aren't allowed to look at either. Orsino Apr 2016 #33
Bernie isn't hiding his. They're on the campaign trail and Jane said she will put them out when Zira Apr 2016 #53
Well, it's now April 13. Tick Tock. COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #162
And how about prior years? Orsino Apr 2016 #200
Prior years too, of course. But not releasing COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #201
I disagree. Anyone can request a 30-day extension. Orsino Apr 2016 #203
They can request an extension to file but the cannot COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #205
Bernies Taxes get released every 6 years - every time he runs. Zira Apr 2016 #51
Cough (bullshit) cough. Paying 13.4 percent is interesting. 56K in deductions is INTERESTING. MADem Apr 2016 #71
Bernie tells truth. clinton tells stories. oldandhappy Apr 2016 #54
Furthest from a factual declaration I've seen all day. COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #163
Both should be released, imo. (nt) bigwillq Apr 2016 #57
bernie is in the wrong... artyteacher Apr 2016 #77
Bernie has always released his tax returns and he will this time. Dawgs Apr 2016 #79
how is it a lie... artyteacher Apr 2016 #88
This is false, he didn't release FULL returns uponit7771 Apr 2016 #113
Because he hasn't released them yet. COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #164
"Hasn't release yet" is not "he won't" so it's a lie. n/t Dawgs Apr 2016 #184
OK. When will he release them? January 3? COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #190
It's a lie because he said he will release them. Dawgs Apr 2016 #185
The IRS says they have Bernie's returns, no one but Hillary has her transcripts . . . . pdsimdars Apr 2016 #83
OK. Then why won't the make them public? COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #165
I'd like to know what it is people think they're going to find in his taxes LadyHawkAZ Apr 2016 #98
About $150 mill. hobbit709 Apr 2016 #101
The transcripts involve whether she's been bribed for $675,000 Herman4747 Apr 2016 #102
Bernie is going to look like a HUUUUGE hypocrite ... salinsky Apr 2016 #103
The Difference tirebiter Apr 2016 #104
lol... birdiebro is working overtime!!! uponit7771 Apr 2016 #109
About 20 million nt Bonobo Apr 2016 #125
Bernie will release his taxes just before the NY primary. DemocracyDirect Apr 2016 #132
I thought maybe while they're in Rome? ViseGrip Apr 2016 #151
As soon as somebody can come up with COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #166
One will be released before the debate.....n/t pantsonfire Apr 2016 #159
Also, Bernie has financial disclosures from the last 26 years here jfern Apr 2016 #171
Seriously... deathrind Apr 2016 #178
millions and millions SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2016 #179
The 1040 has already been made public. I don't know what shills expect to find in the worksheets lumberjack_jeff Apr 2016 #182
Bernie's taxes are comparable to Hillary's taxes treestar Apr 2016 #187
"Bernie's TAX RETURNS" was from an email blast the other day; to counteract the transcripts amborin Apr 2016 #188
Several 0's. N/t JesterCS Apr 2016 #193
I assumed you were asking for a number of zeroes Capt. Obvious Apr 2016 #209
Nothing Stuckinthebush Apr 2016 #212
such disrespect for voters to refuse to release the transcripts amborin Apr 2016 #214
We don't know what is in Bernie's returns, so how can you answer what the BreakfastClub Apr 2016 #220
Tax returns are a legally required document workinclasszero Apr 2016 #221
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
1. It's all they got.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 01:52 PM
Apr 2016

Prevaricate, deflect, obfuscate, hurl false equivalencies. And that is being kind and giving them credit for knowing exactly what they are doing.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
60. They even became stalkers over the plane flight to the Vatican.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:47 PM
Apr 2016

Those thread were so scary, I sent them to the Secret Service out of fear someone was planning to do something to the plane.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
2. The tax returns go directly to the candidate's adherence to the law of the land.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 01:56 PM
Apr 2016

Speech transcripts are just opinions, and opinions often change.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
13. Yes opinions change, and Hillary Clinton's opinions change EXTREMELY often
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:03 PM
Apr 2016

There is full disclosure of all his finances in the Senate record, it is a requirement and open to the public already, if there were any "laws broken", I am sure they would have caught it.

You are looking for dirt in distilled water, good luck with that.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
15. But TAX RETURNS are a declaration to the government.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:08 PM
Apr 2016

And his Senate disclosures are not "full" at all--they're a mishmash of bullshit, and, it turns out, they're INCOMPLETE.

You want to die on the "Senate Disclosure" hill? Go right ahead!


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/1/1509132/-Why-Hasn-t-Bernie-Sanders-Released-His-Tax-Returns

Last fall, Sanders revised his 2012 and 2014 financial disclosures twice. His 2013 disclosure was revised three times. Sanders failed to disclose four mortgages, all of them at market interest rates, which raises a question about his judgment, since nothing appears improper except the failure to fully disclose.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
22. Yeah, it sucks when the bottom line is that your candidate is not being transparent.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:13 PM
Apr 2016

I wouldn't be surprised if Jane cut a few corners, that the IRS wouldn't notice, but the 4th Estate would.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
28. No, you don't. The US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not require that
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:23 PM
Apr 2016

citizens file their private utterances with the authorities, but they DO require that citizens file and pay taxes. I'll let you google that for yourself, since you're putting yourself out as an expert on that score.

Bernie and Jane paid 13.4 percent in taxes last year--that's less than I paid, and I make a helluva lot less than they do.

When Mister Fight The Power is a one percenter in terms of his income, but he is paying less in taxes, as a percentage of his income, than a fast food worker, people have every right to say "WTF?"

MADem

(135,425 posts)
76. 13.4 percent's worth of truth. If everyone paid as few taxes as Berrrnie, you wouldn't be able to
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:15 PM
Apr 2016

afford to pay to heat federal buildings, never mind free college for everyone!

hueymahl

(2,414 posts)
202. Don't let facts get in your way
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 09:42 AM
Apr 2016

"Mister Fight The Power is a one percenter"

$156k in AGI is not top 1%, not even close. In 2013, they would have needed $428,712, or a little less than 300% more than they currently make. It likely is more now. http://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T054-C000-S001-your-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply ignorant on this point and not trying to be deceptive.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
204. All of his assets are in his wife's name--why do you suppose that is?
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 12:00 PM
Apr 2016
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply ignorant on this point and not trying to be deceptive.






You try so hard with the snark!

hueymahl

(2,414 posts)
207. Estate planning?
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 04:02 PM
Apr 2016

Why do you think it is? Your question has a point. No need to be demure.

Oh, and I noticed you just moved the goalposts. Before, it was about his income taxes. Now that I have exploded that line of attack, it is about his wife's assets.

And believe me, I am not trying to be snarky. I truly was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are not ignorant. Which means you are purposefully trying to be deceptive.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
208. I think if he didn't cut that shit loose, he'd be a millionaire...and ya can't have that, can ya?
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 04:15 PM
Apr 2016

I would not be surprised if he quits the race before he ever releases his tax returns.

I also think, if he decides to run for the Senate again in 18, that his opponent(S) will make Such A Stink about his taxes that we'll hear it all the way from the remotest corners of the Northeast Kingdom.

The TAXES and the WIFE's ASSETS are all of a piece, you know. "Exploded that line of attack?" You overstate your talents.



One thing you have to say about the Clinton finances, they are ENTIRELY transparent about them.

You can't say the same about the Sanders'. They are secretive and evasive. And it's OBVIOUS.

And who in hell is being "demure?" Never mind "deceptive?" You apparently love to toss shit when you've got nothing--and that ugly, accusatory post is all on you. YOU WERE trying to be snarky--and rude, and insulting. If I cared what you thought (and I don't) your silly little cheap shots would matter--but I don't, so they don't.

smh. Release those TAXES, Bernie!!! Let's see those schedules!

Next time, try conversing without personal insult and obvious bitterness, and maybe someone will take you seriously. You're coming off like a very disappointed and childish pouter when you start flinging shit at people because you don't like their opinions.

hueymahl
207. Estate planning?
View profile
Why do you think it is? Your question has a point. No need to be demure.

Oh, and I noticed you just moved the goalposts. Before, it was about his income taxes. Now that I have exploded that line of attack, it is about his wife's assets.

And believe me, I am not trying to be snarky. I truly was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are not ignorant. Which means you are purposefully trying to be deceptive.


hueymahl

(2,414 posts)
210. You are a piece of work
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:51 AM
Apr 2016

Talk about name calling! That is all you appear capable of. But, I don't alert, so I guess I will just ignore you.

What is transparent is this is the latest Clintonian attack her supporters are rallying around. Good luck with that.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
211. Do you even look at the garbage you write?
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:43 PM
Apr 2016
hueymahl
210. You are a piece of work
View profile
Talk about name calling!
That is all you appear capable of. But, I don't alert, so I guess I will just ignore you.

What is transparent is this is the latest Clintonian attack her supporters are rallying around. Good luck with that.



You can "name call" public figures all the live long day. And questioning their lack of transparency isn't "name calling." Not everyone "Feels the Bern." GET USED TO IT. But calling DUers a "piece of work?" That's against the TOS in normal times. Maybe you should read the TOS here instead of running around calling people names. That's some friendly advice for you, for the short time you'll be here. I've a feeling you'll find this place entirely uninteresting once the primaries are over.

hueymahl

(2,414 posts)
215. You sure are acting angry
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:58 PM
Apr 2016

And threatening. And acting like a bully.

I've been here quite a while, and I will be here when the silly season is over. And I will vote for the democratic nominee. Despite both our candidates flaws, they are light-years better than the alternative.

Just because I don't obsess over this site and have over a 100K posts (which is a little insane, frankly), is no reason to attack me or anyone else. But many people resort to ad hominem attacks when reasoned arguments fail.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
223. I am not--but YOU keep getting personal with me and calling me names.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:57 PM
Apr 2016

You started out by calling me deceitful, and then it got worse. Every post is a personal insult. Now you're calling me INSANE.

All I'm doing is pointing out your rude, abusive behavior.


Don't like it?

Stop behaving in a way that does not conform to the TOS.

For someone who claims to not "obsess" over this site, you're sure coming at me with both barrels. Over and over and over again. You just can't stop, can you?



Why is that, I wonder?

Hmmmmmm. Inquiring minds want to know.


If you want to know about "angry" maybe you need to look a little closer to home....





Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
43. Well, I have tried not to use ignore very often and still only have perhaps a dozen on ignore
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:40 PM
Apr 2016

But I won't be seeing that one again any time soon. I down have a screen for that show to be projected on anymore.



Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
29. You have grown from a Conservative Democrat I sometimes disagreed with, but fairly decent
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:23 PM
Apr 2016

Into something very unpleasant, and abrasive, that resorts to Rovian methods of attack, and David Brock Talking point parroting.

Until (if ever) you return to your old self, worthy of good discussion and input I am placing you on ignore. I will take you off after the primaries to see if you've gotten yourself together again, but until then, I won't even see your posts.

Goodbye for now, my one-time ally on many issues.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
122. Yeah, and you have no argument, so you make it about MEEEEEEEEE.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 10:02 PM
Apr 2016

What's "Rovian" about asking why a guy who makes over 200K a year only pays 13.4 percent of his salary in taxes?

What's "Rovian" about wondering why a guy EXEMPTS over a quarter of his income in a single year?

What's "Rovian" about wondering why this "straight shooter" with "nothing to hide" has not released ANY TAX RETURNS? ANY? And no--summaries do NOT count.

This guy is supposed to be transparent--until he releases ten years of returns, like a transparent public official should, he's a BSer.

And it ain't about MEEEEEEEEEEE. Your comments are both ugly and embarrassing to you. My only crime is that I don't think Berrrrrrrnie is The Way and The Light. I think he's a bullshitter who trods the path of Do as I Say, Not as I Do.

Shame on YOU.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
47. So would you be OK with Ted Cruz not releasing his tax returns?
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:09 PM
Apr 2016

After all he's also a US Senator, so according to you we already know everything we need to about his finances and he shouldn't bother releasing tax returns. Not suggesting you support Cruz or anything like that, I just want a straight yes or no answer on whether you'd be happy with him offering such a justification for not releasing them.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
50. You are stating something as fact that is only rumor that he "will not release his tax returns"
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:32 PM
Apr 2016
It is important to pay attention, he is going to release them, and very soon, please provide me with the quote or evidence that he "will not release his tax returns" before making such an unfounded statement, if you did that it would actually not be false and I could answer fact rather than conflated rumors spread as bait.

I will not respond to falsehoods, or conflated bullshit rumors (or more likely in this case a Brock produced false meme smear tactic)

I will only answer true statements, or discuss issues and their differences on them.

If you produce evidence to support your claim he refuses to release them (he in fact has said the opposite), then I will respond accordingly, until then, I realize the entire Clinton campaign relies on smears and seldom, very seldom are her issues discussed by her people.

I therefore understand your need to use smears as discussion, but I prefer issues and I find Sanders to be the far superior candidate on the issues.
 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
62. It's a simple yes or no question
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:51 PM
Apr 2016

Would you be OK with Senator Ted Cruz offering the same justification that you offered in post #13?

Sanders has not released all his tax returns so far. Contrary to what you asserted, I made no predictions about whether he will do so in the future, and I have never used the phrase 'will not release his tax returns", which you dishonestly attributed to me in the title of your message. I don't know whether he will do so or not and have not formed any opinion on what his reasons for not doing so already might be. You lied by pretending I said that.

Now yes or no, are you OK with Ted Cruz using the same reasoning that you did in post #13 as a justification not to release tax returns?

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
64. "Will you stop beating your wife" is also a yes or no answer, one I also wouldn't answer tho.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:00 PM
Apr 2016

re-read my post to see why (I'll give you a hint, my wife is no longer with us, but I had never beaten her).

As far as Cruz, he is off topic, but I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire, but your trying to equate Cruz with Sanders as you do, is really quite telling.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
70. The two are nothing alike as you well know.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:07 PM
Apr 2016

You said in post #13 that you think Sanders' senate financial disclosures are sufficient. I am asking if you think the same is true for Ted Cruz, since he is also a US senator. Specifically, you wrote:

There is full disclosure of all his finances in the Senate record, it is a requirement and open to the public already, if there were any "laws broken", I am sure they would have caught it.


I am simply asking if you think the same standard should apply to Ted Cruz or not.

My question does not contain any implicit logical fallacies of the kind you are trying to distract people with. You are certainly going to great lengths to avoid answering a simple question.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
73. You are quite the ventriloquist
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:11 PM
Apr 2016

"You said in post #13 that you think Sanders' senate financial disclosures are sufficient." the words you threw in my mouth.

What I actually said

There is full disclosure of all his finances in the Senate record, it is a requirement and open to the public already, if there were any "laws broken", I am sure they would have caught it.


I have also stated that he has not refused to release his returns as you so "artfully smeared"
and he will release them and soon, which will mean you will have to await the next email with the fresh smear after this one is proven wrong.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
85. Actually I quoted the same piece of text that you did...
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:33 PM
Apr 2016

...because I anticipated that you would make this sort of complaint. Everyone else can look at my last post and see that I quoted your words from post #13 verbatim so that there would be no ambiguity. It is dishonest of you to pretend I did otherwise. Nor have I made any allegation, ever, anywhere, that Sanders has refused to release his returns in the future, another blatant lie on your part. You certainly like to project a lot, since it is actually you who is falsely putting words in my mouth when I am taking the trouble to represent your statements accurately.

Now yet again, as you said in post #13:

There is full disclosure of all his finances in the Senate record, it is a requirement and open to the public already, if there were any "laws broken", I am sure they would have caught it.

Do you think the same standard should apply to Senator Ted Cruz, yes or no?



Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
96. I think they would've uncovered if he broke the law YES, that answers the question re my words fully
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:20 PM
Apr 2016

NOW Mr Brock,

Do I think all candidates should disclose their tax returns as well as tax havens and huge profits made from secret speeches to the banking elite they are running to regulate? Yes on all that as well.

I know he will release his taxes so this non issue your employers have you carrying the water on will soon evaporate.

Do you agree YES OR NO with my above yes or no question in full above, since we are conflating one thing with another as you have been trying to do and appear to believe is a normal thing?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
75. But .... but .... (Shirley Temple POUT) .... "It's Oooh Kaaaay if it's BERRRRRRNIE!!!!"
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:13 PM
Apr 2016

LOL!

He's SPECIAL....and tweeting birds love him....so what if he only paid THIRTEEN percent of his income in taxes....He's BERRRRRRNIE!!!!!!

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
61. Thanks for reminding me, unlike the other poster now on ignore, you have always been abrassive
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:49 PM
Apr 2016

an more often in a foul mood than not, unlike the other poster, you will not get un-ignored after the primary because you have never been a decent poster here from what I've read.

Goodbye, now invisible one!

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
116. But changing so often both for the better and the worse and so very often shows little but
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 06:20 PM
Apr 2016

vacillation.

A state of a perpetual indecision. Not a good trait for a leader to posses IMHO.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
119. Flexible adherence to a moral compass that does not waver or compromise moral values is best.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 06:33 PM
Apr 2016

even when it is not politically expedient to do so, especially so in such a case.

vacillation in a leader is an extremely bad trait.
A point illustrated well by Shakespeare

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
120. Sept Sanders isn't flexible at all, matter of fact he's more dogmatic seeing there are few practical
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 09:35 PM
Apr 2016

... details or responses to questions when asked about details.

I'm glad we're having a long primary, Clinton seems to be the better choice overall

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
123. He is flexible, just not with his morality 109 economists including Robert Reich disagree regarding
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 10:19 PM
Apr 2016

His specifics and policy goals as they were misrepresented in a tabloid recently.
Go to his website, there are many specifics there if you wish to learn his policies and specifics.

Hearing a bias interpretation of his policies from Clinton or a Clinton PAC source run by David Brock (Correct the Record, Blue Nation Review etc) or from the Daily Beast (where Chelsea Clinton was just given a leadership role on the board), let alone a tabloid style rag run by Clinton heavy donor and neocon Mortimer Zuckerman, You will get what his opponent in the election has paid for.

Judging by your comments I see that is where you get all or most of your information Regarding Bernie sanders policy positions and it is sad because campaigns want to win and learning about a candidate from his opponent will not give you any information that is unbiased or in favor of it's competing candidate.

To be frank with you I fear you have already drunk the David Brock kool-aid, served just as effectively as it was served to those needed to slut shame and victim blame Anita Hill for the purposes of getting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

Deprogramming such expert spin is beyond my ability as I am not qualified to deprogram anyone.

It is important for me to tell you the truth anyway, and that is that learning about Sanders' positions from the Clinton campaign and it's PACs or surrogates, is akin to learning about Clinton's policies from a Sanders paid PAC if he had one, would you trust her positions based on such a source as that?

As I said, I think you are no longer objective and I doubt a mile long sub thread would change anything other that which slogans you have been taught to memorize and repeat without even your realizing you were taught to do so, so I chose to leave the conversation with you here, ending it, but in the hopes that perhaps some of what I have written has gotten through.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
124. No he's not, well... until he see's he's going to totally lose a demographic... then he becomes
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 10:20 PM
Apr 2016

... flexible ... like the rest

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
126. sigh, you should have read my full post, not that the truth matters in a big Donor corporate
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 10:28 PM
Apr 2016

special interest run campaign, only the expensive kool-aid, put out by specialists in marketing and spin rather than policy and truth. matter to a consumer treated and conditioned mind.

I tried, but all I received for my efforts was one more ignore on my list rather than an intelligent conversation.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
86. That's what you're going with? "Opinions change?"
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:34 PM
Apr 2016

It sounds like you assume the worst about the transcripts, a legitimate assumption.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
143. I think the transcripts are going to disappoint the hell out of you eager beavers.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:45 PM
Apr 2016

But I think those Sanders tax returns are a gold mine.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
147. I really don't care about the transcripts, it's just a good issue to hammer.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:50 PM
Apr 2016

It looks bad and she could clear it up if she wanted to. It fits neatly with the package.

I don't expect her to release the transcripts, ever, for various reasons. Which makes it an even better issue to hammer.

I wish Bernie would just release his returns. If there is anything in there, we should know. I'm honestly don't worry about it.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
153. I try.
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:06 AM
Apr 2016

And it is a good issue. It had you suggest that she may have said something that she has changed her position or opinion on.

We all know there is next to no chance that Bernie can pull this off. It is so close to no chance that the only thing keeping from it being "no chance" is that he hasn't dropped out. I support him and that minuscule chance until one candidate concedes.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
118. LMAO!!!
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 06:26 PM
Apr 2016

Do you REALLY believe the there is something in Bernie's tax returns that broke the law?

REALLY??

Be serious now.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
145. Yeah, I do.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:48 PM
Apr 2016

"Mom's condo....?"

Mom has been dead for over ten years. Did they rent it and not mention it? What was up with Mom's condo for ten years after Mom died?


I think Jane's not too good at "math."

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
150. LOL
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:59 PM
Apr 2016

Do you have any idea how often properties like this go unattended for 10 or more years?

I literally JUST lost a bidding war over a property like this in Santa Monica.

The parent had died sometime in the early 2000s. The son inherited the property but didn't live in the area. Thought about remodeling it, never got around to it and wound up selling it "as is". That property sat vacant for likely close to 15 years. None of the appliances worked and it needed many renovations.

We bid 1,050,000 as our top bid and would have had to fiance 60% of it. Someone out bid us with a full cash offer for 1,065,000. The owner didn't even want to come back to us, b/c they wanted the cash offer over any financing (which can always fall through). They renovated the place and sold is 4 months later for 1.4 million. I kick myself for not going to a friend of mine who had the cash, but those are the breaks.

However, it is hardly odd for "Mom's condo" to go completely empty for 10 years.

So please.. bring something REAL to the conversation.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
152. We shall see--but don't act like you "know" -- because you don't.
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:06 AM
Apr 2016

Speaking of bringing something REAL to the conversation.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
167. I know enough to know there is absolutely nothing suspicious.
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:29 AM
Apr 2016

Its a nonsense issue.

"Mom's condo".

Please.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
168. That's why Jane started sweating like a confidence man caught out on MSNBC when she was asked
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:33 AM
Apr 2016

about her taxes....

Please.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
173. Wow. The stuff people see when they are desperate.
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:09 AM
Apr 2016

"sweating like a confidence man".

So, let me get this straight.. in 30+ years of often highly contested elections you believe that they are doing something shady on their taxes and NO ONE noticed until now?

And whatever this is... (despite the fact that numbers all add up).. whatever this thing is.. its some type of bombshell that will blow the Sanders campaign apart.

And this revolves around "Mom's condo"??

Here's the funniest thing. Most people look at the other candidates (who all have far more money and likely accountants who handle their taxes) and say "well.. they released theirs".. yeah, they called their accountant and asked for a copy and released it.

When you do your own taxes, as I used to do from 1995-2005.. I wouldn't have been able to find ANYTHING. I did them, mailed em in and stuck a copy somewhere. Where? I don't know.. in a box, in a drawer. They existed. When we recently moved, i came across some of them and laughed. They went into a bag to be shredded.

When I bought my condo in 2006, I HAD TO do a stated income loan mainly because I couldn't FIND my tax returns from 2004 and earlier and the amount of time it gets to get copies from the IRS would have surpassed my allotted time to get a loan.

Anyone who does their own taxes and doesn't have MUCH to declare knows this.. taxes only become something important to keep when they become complicated. Given what they showed in 2014, their taxes aren't complicated. Very simple actually.

So please... sell your wild conspiracy theories elsewhere.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
174. Highly contested elections--are you high? He has only had one really tough election in recent
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:14 AM
Apr 2016

years--the one where all the Senate PACS chipped in to help him ten years ago. HILLPAC gave him a couple of donations, if you'll recall.

Sanders has ESCAPED electoral scrutiny because his voting base is smaller than that of the city of Boston.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
180. LMAO
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 03:02 AM
Apr 2016

Keep telling yourself that... b/c the gop never went after the socialist.


Sorry to burst your hope bubble... but their aint nothing there

MADem

(135,425 posts)
213. You've never seen a GOP attack ad, obviously. You're YOUNG?
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:45 PM
Apr 2016


If they ever went after Sanders, Swiftboating and Willy Horton would look like a walk in the park.
 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
217. Seen many of them.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:14 PM
Apr 2016

Never found them that effective, unless you have a weak candidate like Clinton who is so easy to attack.

Sorry, not young.

Although I think by Clinton standards anyone under 60 is "Young", so I guess then, yes, I am young.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
218. Well, Mike Dukakis and John Kerry do disagree with you, you know.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:22 PM
Apr 2016

It doesn't really matter what YOU find effective--it's what the ELECTORATE finds effective.

Old attacks? They're the same as no attacks. But with Sanders, there's something brand new around the corner every day.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
222. LOL.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:55 PM
Apr 2016

Kerry lost because he voted for the Iraq War and didn't have support of the progressives. I certainly didn't vote for him. What self respecting progressive would have voted for Kerry???

Dukakis didn't lose to "attack ads". We were coming off the Reagan revolution and what was PERCEIVED by many to be great economic times.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
224. Oh yeah, all those "progressives" voted for George Bush? Listen to you!
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:58 PM
Apr 2016



I have no idea what you do for a living, but I think we can cross "political science professor" off the list.
 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
225. They didn't vote for Bush. They voted 3rd party.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:02 PM
Apr 2016

Or maybe they didn't vote.

The point is the democrats fielded their weakest candidate possible b/c he couldn't combat bush on the issue bush was the weakest on.. the Iraq War.

So you ended up with an election between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
227. Oh, yeah, sure!!! That must mean that "progressives" make up, what--two percent of the electorate?
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:58 PM
Apr 2016

Listen to yourself!

Feel the MATH!

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
228. Yes, feel the math.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 06:08 PM
Apr 2016

The ones you NEED (but cannot get) make up enough of % of the electorate to cause democrats to lose swing states.

This is why Clinton will never be president.

She can't win the swing states b/c the base won't turn out for her. Couple that with voter suppression tactics and she has no chance in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Arizona or even Wisconsin for that matter.

The only way to overcome this is MASSIVE voter turnout.. but she can't inspire that.

 

beedle

(1,235 posts)
140. Tax returns go to the IRS
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:41 PM
Apr 2016

and if there were anything illegal about Bernie's it's up to the IRS to determine that ... and unless you have something that shows the IRS found illegality in Bernie's tax returns, then you are just blowing smoke out your 'Hillary'.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
142. Maybe, just maybe, Jane doesn't want the 4th Estate to pull those Schedule A items apart.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:44 PM
Apr 2016

Because if the media does find a discrepancy, and they report it, the IRS will look into it.

 

beedle

(1,235 posts)
146. Maybe,
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:49 PM
Apr 2016

But the IRS already has those Schedule A's ... I'm sure the 'scandal' of not releasing them to the public is just as good at getting the IRS to review them.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
148. Sanders admitted she files extensions often, and amends as well.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:51 PM
Apr 2016

She's probably got a slew of accountants amending the hell out of the last ten years of returns...!

 

beedle

(1,235 posts)
170. Clintons ommitted whole shell companies
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:41 AM
Apr 2016

Until the email leaks "reminded" them that they must have "somehow forgotten" them!?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511718829

MADem

(135,425 posts)
172. That's a garbage cite--no link. Talks about "financial reports" -- not tax returns. Stop conflating
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:47 AM
Apr 2016

and changing the subject-it is obvious that you are trying to shift the focus away from the tax return problem.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
177. Oooooooooh (Shirley Temple Pout)! You are gonna be Soooooooo MAD when nothing comes of that!
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:32 AM
Apr 2016

Grrrr! Grrrrrrr!!!

JudyM

(29,122 posts)
195. Omg, your candidate appears to have sold weapons in exchange for foundation donations & you expect
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:32 PM
Apr 2016

us to believe you care about the law? She doesn't even comply with the spirit of the law, much less the letter of it.

elleng

(130,126 posts)
3. and Jane Sanders has committed to providing his new return as soon as it's completed,
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 01:56 PM
Apr 2016

and the older ones when she can get home to get them from their files.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
6. The IRS will provide a copy of your full return for a fee.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 01:57 PM
Apr 2016

I'm sure they could afford it--it's less than two twenty seven dollar donations per return.


He needs to release the past ten years, at least--since he got to the Senate.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
17. Actually, the campaign is paying for their room and board, so
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:10 PM
Apr 2016

they're in GREAT shape, financially.

You think "Bernie and Jane" are donating to this campaign? GET REAL!

They're living off those little people donations!

MADem

(135,425 posts)
23. YOU said THIS:
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:16 PM
Apr 2016
Sure they could afford it,

they have nothing better to do with their money at the moment.


But guess what?

They could write those fees off as a business expense!

So what's your excuse NOW, that people who make over two hundred grand a year can't afford a few hundred dollars to get old tax returns out of the IRS? Hmmmm?


MADem

(135,425 posts)
32. Bullshit. Jane has adult children who can go get that stuff for her.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:29 PM
Apr 2016

The excuse - making I've seen here, the twisting, the "Oh, well...." ...it is MIND-BOGGLING.

If Clinton was missing one page of a Schedule A you'd be shitting bricks and demanding her head. But Berrrnnnnnie hasn't released ANY returns -- not a single one, just a summary page that raises more questions than it answers -- and you "Awwww...." and "Pooor Busy BERRRRRNIE..." all over the place--it's absolutely craven. Shameless! You hold one candidate up to the highest standards, but let the one you favor get away with absolute murder.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you sure as fuck wouldn't be saying "Oh, poor Hillary....she's BUSY!"

The hypocrisy is so self-evident, you should be cringing.

elleng

(130,126 posts)
36. I'm not interested in hillary's schedule a's,
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:32 PM
Apr 2016

I'm interested in her judgment, fyi.

MY candidate, fwiw, was MO'M.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
38. You sure as hell would be if she DIDN'T RELEASE THEM.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:35 PM
Apr 2016

I'm just sick to death of the hypocritical approach to this matter.

If Clinton did what Sanders IS doing, you'd be calling for her head.

Viva_La_Revolution

(28,791 posts)
45. in what fairy land do the bills back home stop because you are traveling?
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:57 PM
Apr 2016

Mortgage, utilities and services.. You claimed they are saving expenses because they are living off the campaign. It was not subtle

MADem

(135,425 posts)
46. The electric bill goes down to nothing. If you're not paying to fill the fridge, but instead,
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:09 PM
Apr 2016

eating off the campaign dime, you're saving a fortune there. If the campaign is paying for your laundry, you're not doing your own, and saving money there; if you're away from home, the heat is down low, so you're saving money there.

They ARE saving money by living off the campaign. Hell, Kucinich did that as a way of life--so did Al Sharpton. It wasn't a state secret.

 

ViseGrip

(3,133 posts)
92. now you sound uneducated. FEC rules, you MUST spend campaign money on campaign
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:41 PM
Apr 2016

activities. If you do pay for it, you must report it 'in-kind' and those donations are included in the maximum amount.
So they must live off of it....they are not allowed to pay for it, only as much as a max contribution will allow under the guidelines.

"Living off the little people" you are ridiculous. Even if it WERE allowed, I'd rather he live off of us, do deals for us, INSTEAD OF CORPORATIONS AND WALL STREET.

WHAT PART OF THIS REPLY DON'T YOU GET?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
129. That's just absurd. They are not "required to live off the campaign." That's pure NONSENSE.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 10:54 PM
Apr 2016

He could pay his own way, if he wanted to.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
128. If she'd ordered them when people started crabbing, instead of making mealy-mouthed excuses,
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 10:51 PM
Apr 2016

she'd have them by now.

She's got kids--send one of them to the house to fetch the documents.

She knows those returns are a HOT MESS, and that's why she is stalling.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
131. Here's one fact for you - 13.4 %; wouldn't it be nice to pay so little in income tax?
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:03 PM
Apr 2016

That's what Bernie and Jane paid last year.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
134. With receipts like these, Sanders isn't going to be able to send people to flower arranging classes,
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:22 PM
Apr 2016

never mind free college.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
139. If one percenters are contributing so little to the coffers, Sanders will not be able to send people
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:40 PM
Apr 2016

to free college. He might be able to swing a flower arranging class, or maybe a short cosmetology course.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
192. I'm not "shitting on" them. But it costs less to train up in those jobs than it does to attend uni
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:36 PM
Apr 2016

for four years, doesn't it?

Doesn't it???

And if Uncle Sam is taking in so little from wealthy senators, they're certainly not going to make the cash needed to send everyone to school. Like I said, they'll be lucky to be able to afford flower arranging class.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
155. Christ, Jane said she does them on TurboTax,
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:10 AM
Apr 2016

She can get copies online anytime she wants. That excuse is just bullshit.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
189. The point is that some had made the excuse that they
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 11:36 AM
Apr 2016

have not released their tax returns 'because they had to get them from the IRS'. That's clearly not a valid excuse, since she has the returns at her fingertips at any time, day or night from Turbo Tax.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
48. Are you seriously saying the main barrier is Jane's inability to physically access a filing cabinet?
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:22 PM
Apr 2016

It's a good thing the Sanders don't own a dog. With them being away from home so much the poor thing might get hungry and be forced to eat the tax returns to stay alive.

Seriously, every politician in a presidential race (and many smaller races) is expected to release tax returns and this has been true for decades now. But you expect us to believe that this never occurred to Bernie or Jane Sanders and now that it's been pointed out to them they simply haven't had time to get home? At best this speaks to a complete lack of preparation on Sanders' part.

 

virtualobserver

(8,760 posts)
52. the real difference is that Jane had said that they will be released....Hillary won't say that,,,,
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:36 PM
Apr 2016

about the transcripts.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
63. Nobody but Bernie supporters care about the transcripts
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:53 PM
Apr 2016

Just like nobody but the Tea Party cares about Obama's college transcripts. You want to keep insisting that speech transcripts are just like tax returns, but they are not and everyone knows that, including you.

The inability of some people here to address a direct question is striking.

 

virtualobserver

(8,760 posts)
66. You are right, her transcripts tell us what she really believes when she talks to big business......
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:03 PM
Apr 2016

Bernie's piddling tax returns won't reveal anything that we don't already know......

"everyone knows that, including you"

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
80. Complete nonsense
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:26 PM
Apr 2016

I have no idea what Clinton believes i her heart of hearts, and I have no reason to believe that she reveals her innermost self to bankers at Goldman Sachs. More likely she does what everyone else does, which is tell them what they want to hear - that they're an important part of the economy, that people in DC take their concerns seriously, that the future holds great opportunities, and that America is the greatest country in the world and New York is the greatest city in the world.

She is no more reading from the secret handbook of the Illuminati when she addresses bankers at GS than she is reading from the Communist Manifesto when she addresses an audience of union members or reading from the ultra-secret Homosexual Agenda if she addresses a group of LGBT activists. You have apparently convinced yourself that there is some shocking smoking gun to be found in the speech of a politician addressing a gathering of people in a major industry, based solely on the fact that you disapprove of the banking industry. That's your problem.

I don't expect to find any big smoking guns in Sanders tax returns, but I'm a bit curious about why he has delayed publishing them because it's become such a normal thing for candidates to do over the last 40 years, and Sanders would have known that from the beginning of his campaign. As a result, he looks amateurish and unprepared when he offers excuses like his wife's inability to get to the filing cabinet they're stored in. Let's hope that she didn't leave the gas on when she departed their home and that it's still standing whenever they finally make it back to Vermont, as apparently there's nobody they trust to drop by the house while they're away.

 

virtualobserver

(8,760 posts)
95. This isn't about what is in her "heart of hearts"....The smoking gun is the secrecy itself.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:15 PM
Apr 2016

You don't create a contract that states that there will be no video record, and no transcripts except for the one that she receives unless you are saying things that you don't want the public to hear. You don't create a private email system that allows you to delete any email that you like prior to a freedom of information request unless you are worried that a smoking gun might be created.

What I have a "problem" with is a candidate taking money hand over fist as personal income in the millions from every sector of Big Business for short speeches that she refuses to share with us. It has the appearance of corruption, and she compounds the problem with her evasiveness.


Bernie is probably the first major candidate in modern history to do his own taxes, and anyone who uses Turbo Tax does not have a very complicated tax return. By the way, it is April 12th, and Jane said that she would not be requesting an extension this year, so she should have the taxes done by the 15th, and she did ask "How many years would you like?"

So this should be resolved soon, and the Senator with the lowest net worth will have satisfied this "requirement"....

But, will Hillary release her transcripts?....Not in a million years.



 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
97. Not seeing it
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:23 PM
Apr 2016

Contracts like that are common when people are charging huge speaking fees, because the less available they are the higher the speaking fees they can charge. I have no problem with someone who is arguably the most famous women in the world getting paid more than I see in a year for a short speech. She wasn't speaking in her capacity as a public official at the time so as far as I am concerned that's her private business. The public doesn't own public figures except insofar as they are paid by the public dime. Same reason I really don't give a shit about sex scandals regardless of party affiliation.

 

virtualobserver

(8,760 posts)
100. The money and the lack of transparency would be fine if she wasn't running for President.......
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:40 PM
Apr 2016

Merely taking all of that money as income compromises her, and they are also funding her campaign and her superPACS.

They shoot money at her out of a fire hose in every conceivable way,

No one in history has been so brazen and so secretive. It is hard to think of anyone in modern history who is more compromised.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
105. The hyperbole is sort of ridiculous
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:55 PM
Apr 2016

I reject your claim that merely taking money compromises her. Obviously we are not going to agree about this.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
110. When you have to make up statements to attribute them to your opponent...
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 06:02 PM
Apr 2016

...something is deeply lacking in your argument. Have a nice day.

 

virtualobserver

(8,760 posts)
112. I am just expressing what you are claiming,,they gave her millions and it won't affect her decsions
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 06:04 PM
Apr 2016

That is what she is saying...and you agree

 

FighttheFuture

(1,313 posts)
82. Au contrarie, if HRC supporters actually saw those transcripts she would have a lot less
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:28 PM
Apr 2016

suckers... err, supporters!

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
87. And you know this how?
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:35 PM
Apr 2016

I'm all ears for this explanation, since you claim to be so knowledgeable. What would I see?

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
99. So no answer then
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:31 PM
Apr 2016

The leaks I've seen suggest that she told Goldman Sachs employees the sort of thing that they wanted to hear and that it was the sort of shallow audience-affirming pablum that invited speakers everywhere give to audiences - you're great, your industry is very important, America is the greatest country in the world and you play an important part in that, here's an insider story from my days as a Very Famous Person that you can use to amuse your friends at your next dinner party. Afterwards there are handshakes and photos with the Very Famous Person, who makes a show of being absolutely delighted to shake hands with complete strangers who s/he will in all likelihood never meet again.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure that when the Presidential candidates stop in Iowa every 4 years they don't actually give much of a shit about farming but they still tell everyone they meet that they're the salt o the earth and this This Is The Real America and that Iowa is the most important place in the country and that whatever town they happen to be in is the most important place in Iowa because the people there are the realest most American Americans. Just like they say the food they eat in the diners they visit is the most delicious food they've ever tasted even if it's warmed over hog swill.

 

FighttheFuture

(1,313 posts)
106. She was not at GS et. al. for the food. So, Until she releases them, if ever, I will assume the
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:59 PM
Apr 2016

most damaging statements. There's no reason not too considering her donor base and connections.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
108. Well at least you are honest about being irrational
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 06:01 PM
Apr 2016

I don't know where you were last night so until you fess up I'm going to assume you were out murdering people.

 

FighttheFuture

(1,313 posts)
194. This is why people like you get everyone else fucked in the ass!
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:29 PM
Apr 2016

You think every.single.fact needs to be presented and until then you can darw no conclusions whatsoever. But, your defense of HRC is its own conclusion. What is that based on ? She made millions speaking to banksters so it certainly right to want to know what was said. Do you think Mitt Romney wanted his 47% comment to get out? I don't, but it did and it hurt him. So what is Hillary trying to hide? I am sure it will most likley confirm many things people are suspecting... that she's the rich and powerfuls' gal, not ours (the people)!!!

BTW, if I wasn't around to respond to you on your time-frame, I must mention that I do have other things to do besides point out the obvious to the clueless.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
197. uh huh
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 02:53 PM
Apr 2016

Yes, do like to gather the facts before drawing conclusions, must be my legal background. You, on the other hand, draw your conclusions first and then go about looking for evidence to support them, and substituting innuendo when evidence is in short supply. And that's why I don't take you seriously, or anyone else pushing this line of argument. If you didn't know that famous political figures are commonly paid fat money to give fluffy speeches to corporate and conference audiences then you must have been living under a rock for many years.

The majority of people are well aware of this practice and don't see it as a moral litmus test, so I invite you to consider the possibility that the majority might actually be correct in not thinking that this is a big deal. I say this because it seems like right now you simply can't conceive of the idea that it could be anything other nefarious. Can I suggest watching more C-Span? Because they carry a lot of this sort of stuff and after a while you might come around to the idea that such speeches are a) normal and b) boring (in terms of low historical importance).

I mean, I can see understand that you might have a genuine worry about banksters trying to corrupt a political candidate, even if I think your fear is overblown. What I find laughable is the notion that they'd do so by tempting them with some normal-for-the-industry speaking fees, as opposed to offering them serious money in a secret meeting. You just don't seem to appreciate that the speaking fees are pretty nickel-and-dime amounts to someone of this status and that the speaking fees paid by bankers only add up to a small portion of the total money the Clintons have brought into their foundation in speaking fees over the last 15 years.

My comments about time have nothing to do with the speed of your reply (something I don't care about at all, as I don't send all my time on DU either), although it does show that the point sailed completely over your head.

 

FighttheFuture

(1,313 posts)
206. What I see is government politicians being bought for pennies on the dollar. It it
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 02:57 PM
Apr 2016

very common. HRC took fees from these banksters so they have expectations. It is not my fault that "evidence is in short supply"; she's the one who is not providing the evidence you need. I am not so naive, or trapped with paralysis by analysis, to understand that quid pro quo is a reasonable assumption. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

In terms of serious or secret money. not I do not think she is taking that. She does not have to. The Clintons since Bill left office in 2000 have gone from no net worth to over $230M. It wan't just bill's charm or Hillary's grating laugh that did that! They are a part of a corrupt and broken system that is sliding more and more into Oligarchic Corporatism (aka Fascism). I do not see them changing that course, they are part of it. It does not mean that Hillary may not rise to the occasion if some great collapse occurred. That's hard to say and made eve more difficult by her not releasing what she tells these criminal banking cartels.

As for a moral litmus test, well... that's the very problem now isn't it. We have a candidate, a very rare one who does not take these fees. All others do in some way and it is an important test. Will I exclude her from consideration because of it? No. Will I suspect her actions and motives? Most certainly. Just because the "majority", a questionable assertion, BTW, think this does not mean I do. I am not uninformed as the "majority" certainly is, and I am not a lemming.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
89. Wrong again Bob. The only people who don't care about them are Hillary supporters
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:37 PM
Apr 2016

EVERYONE else does. You seriously don't think the Republicans care about them? Really?

And the REASON they are important is because of the obscene amount of money she and her husband have gotten from those people. That should matter to any sensible person who isn't blinded by the cult of personality.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
94. No doubt you have evidence to back up this claim
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:53 PM
Apr 2016

What concerns the Republicans is of little moment to me, but I seriously doubt that they're going to be arguing that Hillary Clinton shouldn't talk to people who work in the financial industry, based on the Republicans' long-standing hostility to Wall Street and their championing of economic populism.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
8. Oh yeah? Why didn't they release these stinkers months ago?
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 01:59 PM
Apr 2016

It's typical to do this kind of thing at the START of a campaign, not as it is grinding to a sad, ugly end.

I wouldn't be surprised if we never see these things.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
65. The sad, ugly end will be in November, when your candidate loses because she's
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:01 PM
Apr 2016

disenfranchised all her primary opponents' supporters into voting for a third party.

Or she'll be in court.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
68. My candidate won't lose, and your candidate's supporters can either be a part of history or stand to
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:06 PM
Apr 2016

the side, whining and griping, as usual.

While the nation celebrates its first female POTUS, you and your buddies who won't get on the bandwagon can dine on sour grapes.

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
69. Agree. Hillary needs to release the transcripts now.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:06 PM
Apr 2016

Bernie has promised to release his tax records.

Why won't Hillary release her transcripts?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
72. "Transcripts" are not mandated government documents. Tax returns are.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:11 PM
Apr 2016

Bernie is HIDING SOMETHING.

It's obvious.

Amazing how his fans don't have a problem with their "hero" paying less of a percentage of their income in taxes than a Walmart cashier does.

"Do as I say" Bernie! NOT as I do!!

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
78. Bernie has promised to release. If he's a cheat then we will know.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:21 PM
Apr 2016

We won't know what Hillary said to the banksters.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
58. $50,000 in deductions? Exposing a hypocrite who pretends to be pure
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:46 PM
Apr 2016

may not register in your mind as dirt. But it's a part of the political process and the fact Sanders isn't prepared to do it means he's hiding something unflattering.

TCJ70

(4,387 posts)
7. I think he should offer a trade at the debate:
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 01:58 PM
Apr 2016

Tax Returns for Transcripts.

If she doesn't accept the deal, he should release them anyway just to rub it in.

dana_b

(11,546 posts)
11. Also the transcript issue has been ongoing now for months longer than
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:02 PM
Apr 2016

Bernie & Jane's taxes. Hillary wanted Bernie to show his transcripts, he did. There are none. So now it's "show your taxes". No. SHE needs to go next. She hasn't shown her transcripts yet.

She's such a scammer.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
91. He has no transcripts for Wall Street speaches. but
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:40 PM
Apr 2016

he did release the transcript for one speech he gave. I think he got a few thousand dollars for it and he gave that to a charity.

WHAT A GUY !!!!!!!

MattP

(3,304 posts)
14. No transcripts have never been released tax returns have
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:08 PM
Apr 2016

Bernie has been in Congrees decades and has never released his returns EVER, wtf is that.

 

SFnomad

(3,473 posts)
21. Releasing tax returns has become a normal part of Presidential candidate politics for decades
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:12 PM
Apr 2016

No presidential candidate has been required to release transcripts of speeches, EVER.

 

ViseGrip

(3,133 posts)
34. And no others spoke to banking entities that broke our country, and got bailed out.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:30 PM
Apr 2016

This never happened before. IF anyone had gone to jail, maybe it wouldn't be so important what she said. But it is...as it's about shaping policy, and we already know, all of this was wrong! Corrupt and illegal.
The banks got bailed out, and they got the houses and kicked everyone out!

Yes, I want to know what she said. Yes, no one else ever has released their speeches, but this never happened in our lifetime, to our economy they crashed. The most important thing to know this campaign cycle IS what the fuck she said to Wall Street.

 

SFnomad

(3,473 posts)
41. You can come up with any excuse you want, but that still doesn't change the fact
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:38 PM
Apr 2016

that you're holding Secretary Clinton to a standard NOBODY has EVER been held to before. You can wish in one hand all you want, I doubt you're going to get anything out of it.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
136. That's a disingenuous statement.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:35 PM
Apr 2016

Nobody has ever done what she has done before. That's why nobody else has been held to the standard before.

This has deep implications for what her presidency would be like. Because of the huge amount of money she received for a few speeches to the moneyed interests, it is necessary that the public knows there was no quid pro quo offered or implied.

She claims there was none. The transcripts would prove that if true. She cannot claim she isn't beholden to those powerful interests if she fails to produce what she claims are innocent speeches. She is hiding something she knows will be damaging to her campaign if she doesn't.

Money corrupts and Hillary took a lot of money.

 

SFnomad

(3,473 posts)
169. You're the one being disingenuous
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:39 AM
Apr 2016

if you think that there hasn't been a Presidential candidate that has given paid speeches before.

Anything else is just spin and politics on your part.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
181. Bullshit. You ignore the AMOUNTS of money. Those fees were huge and unprecedented.
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 09:59 AM
Apr 2016

I repeat, NO Democratic presidential candidate has ever given speeches for that amount of money. NONE. This is uncharted territory and reeks of possible corruption.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
49. What, no presidential candidate has ever spoken to an audience of bankers before?
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:24 PM
Apr 2016

What planet are you living on?

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
138. Geez, are you pretending to not get it or are you just incapable of getting it?
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:38 PM
Apr 2016

No Democratic presidential candidate has spoken to bankers FOR THAT ABSURD AND EMBARASSING amount of money. Not one. It reeks of influence peddling and corruption.

You think it is funny?

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
191. There is nothing to get
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 01:13 PM
Apr 2016

How many Democratic candidates are also former first ladies and former Senators and former Secretaries of State? There is nothing absurd and embarrassing about the amount of money, that is how much famous people get paid for speaking to private audiences that can afford big speaker fees. It does not reek of influence peddling and corruption at all except in your mind. Globally famous people get paid huge speaking fees because for most people in the audience meeting a globally famous person is a big deal. You think it's corrupt because you've never seen that sort of money and it seems like a massive amount to you, but $600,000 is chump change to genuinely wealthy people. I find the notion that you think Clinton could be bribed with such a tiny amount pretty laughable, as well as your more generalized notion that any large amount of money must be the product of corruption. Frankly I think you're innumerate and your moral posturing impresses me about as much as a kid obsessing over the dimensions of his pizza slice.

Let's get something very clear. Famous people are besieged by requests to give speeches because the supply of famous people is limited and their relative rarity creates an intrinsic economic value. This is reflected in their ability to attract large speaking fees. When speaking to an audience that can afford it, like an audience of bankers, they charge fat money.

This is how the world works. I'm pretty sure you already know this, because it's not uncommon for people on DU to observe that this or that politician is on TV to promote a book or running a fake campaign for President to increase their appearance fees (eg Mike Huckabee). I am not impressed by your moral outrage because I think your position is immature, ignorant, and reflexively ideological rather than based on anything concrete. As I have said before, I think Clinton's plan to regulate Wall Street is likely to be a lot more effective than Sanders' one because its grounded in specifics and displays a much better understanding of how the financial industry and regulatory system work than Senator Sanders seems to have.

To sum up, I 'get it' perfectly well, I just don't agree with you.

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
24. Bernie and Jane will release anything from their tax returns that people want to see
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:16 PM
Apr 2016

Hillary will never release her speech transcripts no matter who asks for them.

That's the difference.

Avalux

(35,015 posts)
26. I think we are missing something else of great importance here.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:20 PM
Apr 2016

Bernie and Jane are regular people; they don't have a CPA do their taxes every year, they don't have shell corporations to hide their money, they don't have a foundation set up to launder foreign money. It's as if they're being hammered about this BECAUSE of their lack of wealth.

That audio of Hillary NOT ANSWERING a direct question about her transcripts and instead bringing up Bernie's tax returns gave us a glimpse into the snide, privileged, and disingenuous woman that she is.

 

ViseGrip

(3,133 posts)
30. Jane is capable to do their own, she is a smart lady.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:26 PM
Apr 2016

You will see three homes....but just know this.

My brother and sis in law, both teachers for life have two homes. One on a lake, complete with fishing boat, ski boat, and pontoon boat! The main residence is a two story newer home, their third they worked up to, for their three kids. All went to college and got masters too!

Just think, two regular jobs, not a lot of money, and they did all that. All while having weekends off to go to to the lake house with their kids.

Bernie is older than my brother. So I expect him to accumulate some equity, property, investments, like most, before it was all rigged.

But you won't see, what you see with the Clinton's. Her speech money is enough for me to see....while knowing they had plenty of money, but their lust for greed never stops.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
160. No, she does what millions of Anericans do every year.
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:17 AM
Apr 2016

She uses Turbo Tax. And by having done so she can retrieve a copy of any of the last 7 yeare returns by the push of a button. But for some reason she hasn't seen fit to do so.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
31. "Transcripts involve the shaping of US policy?"
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:28 PM
Apr 2016

I think that would be Illuminati meetings, not piss-ant Wall Street firms budgeting for 'celebrity' speakers.

 

ViseGrip

(3,133 posts)
42. Ohhhhh NO! Have you forgotten Romney's speech he didn't want us to hear?
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:38 PM
Apr 2016

laughable.

I've never seen dems defend more war, tax cuts, and criminal activity, like the new DU.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
44. I don't need to hear Republican speeches.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:51 PM
Apr 2016

I think Bernie supporters are quite confused.

Hillary, Barack, Bill - not Republicans - Democrats!

Maybe you shouldn't have a DINO tell you what a Democrat is?

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
33. Nothing, if we aren't allowed to look at either.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 02:29 PM
Apr 2016

The transcripts sound more sinister, but why hide either?

 

Zira

(1,054 posts)
53. Bernie isn't hiding his. They're on the campaign trail and Jane said she will put them out when
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:36 PM
Apr 2016

they're due which seemed to indicate she hadn't finished them for this year yet. She acknowledged that Berne releases his taxes every time he runs and that she does his taxes.

I'm guessing this is really about finally getting some press so making people wait longer.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
200. And how about prior years?
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 09:31 AM
Apr 2016

Releasing 2014 is good...except that it looks anemic compared to Clinton's many returns.

I'm fine with 2015 not being complete yet.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
201. Prior years too, of course. But not releasing
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 09:34 AM
Apr 2016

the return they have to file by Monday is inexcusable.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
203. I disagree. Anyone can request a 30-day extension.
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 09:49 AM
Apr 2016

I consider 2015 off the table for now, but would like to see my candidate release more prior years.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
205. They can request an extension to file but the cannot
Thu Apr 14, 2016, 02:17 PM
Apr 2016

extend the time for payment of taxes owed. Those puppies have to be in the IRS' hot little hands on April 18 or the clock starts ticking on fines and interest owed. Tick tock. They could at least share with us commoners how much tax they're paying for 2015 as well as show us prior years' returns.

 

Zira

(1,054 posts)
51. Bernies Taxes get released every 6 years - every time he runs.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 03:33 PM
Apr 2016

Jane does them herself and they've never had anything interesting in them before.

Hillarys scream of fraud - off shore tax havens, moneys from whole countries for questionable way over priced speeches after arms deals were made, etc. etc. Oh, wait that's the foundation's taxes Hillary is part owner in, which makes them Hillary's taxes.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
71. Cough (bullshit) cough. Paying 13.4 percent is interesting. 56K in deductions is INTERESTING.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:08 PM
Apr 2016

There's something fishy up in there.

artyteacher

(598 posts)
77. bernie is in the wrong...
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:18 PM
Apr 2016

Almost no candidates release private speeches.

Most candidates release their taxes.

There is your difference.

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
79. Bernie has always released his tax returns and he will this time.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:23 PM
Apr 2016

Why do Hillary supporters keep repeating the lie that Bernie will not release them?

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
83. The IRS says they have Bernie's returns, no one but Hillary has her transcripts . . . .
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 04:29 PM
Apr 2016

or those emails. Until the FBI stepped in.

LadyHawkAZ

(6,199 posts)
98. I'd like to know what it is people think they're going to find in his taxes
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:24 PM
Apr 2016

Do they think the long form birth certificate tax returns are going to show some nefarious income? On $200k?

Sheesh.

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
102. The transcripts involve whether she's been bribed for $675,000
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:46 PM
Apr 2016

The tax return is inconsequential nonsense.

salinsky

(1,065 posts)
103. Bernie is going to look like a HUUUUGE hypocrite ...
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 05:46 PM
Apr 2016

... if he refuses to release his taxes.

And, the only people who are interested in Hillary's transcripts are her opponents.

 

DemocracyDirect

(708 posts)
132. Bernie will release his taxes just before the NY primary.
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 11:06 PM
Apr 2016

I bet they are getting the copies ready for the debate.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
166. As soon as somebody can come up with
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:22 AM
Apr 2016

a compelling reason for her to do so, unlike any other Presidential candidate.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
182. The 1040 has already been made public. I don't know what shills expect to find in the worksheets
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 10:45 AM
Apr 2016

The 1040 is analagous to the powerpoint from which Hillary worked. I'd be mostly satisfied knowing what she talked about to the banksters, even if I don't know precisely which words she used.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
187. Bernie's taxes are comparable to Hillary's taxes
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 11:32 AM
Apr 2016

So you are holding Hillary to a larger requirement of disclosure.

Stuckinthebush

(10,816 posts)
212. Nothing
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:44 PM
Apr 2016

They are both non-issues.

No one but Sanders supporters care about the transcripts, and Bernie has no shot at winning so his tax returns are meaningless.

On to November!

BreakfastClub

(765 posts)
220. We don't know what is in Bernie's returns, so how can you answer what the
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:25 PM
Apr 2016

difference is? He might have some payola to hide from the NRA, which could have influenced his votes in congress. THAT is serious. No wonder he won't release them!

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
221. Tax returns are a legally required document
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:26 PM
Apr 2016

Speech transcripts are not.

Interesting that a man running for President is so fearful or releasing his tax returns at this late date in the primary.

hmm....

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»What is the difference be...