Frankly I have never heard this request, maybe you should ask him. You can do that sometimes with an accessible candidate!

How much did Hillary get back?

The Clintons have um... 'earned'... a whole lot of money from their friends on Wall Street over the years.

Just a suggestion-- I don't think Hillary supporters really want to call for comparisons between these two candidates' personal finances.

That sounds fair, right? I mean, we're both interested in assuring the candidates aren't in Wall Street's pocket, after all.

Then we can be sure neither is in Wall Street's pocket. Good thinking, fun.

... to any potential presidential candidate being asked to produce transcripts of any speeches they made as a private citizen?

If this is some kind of precedent, I'd like to hear about it.

On the other hand, candidates have traditionally been expected to produce multiple tax returns over many years. Why can't Bernie? Was this somehow unexpected? If so, how could he NOT have known it would be expected?

if it wasn't something that would damage their image somehow?

... can you provide a link to where any candidate has been asked to produce transcripts of their speeches given as private citizens?

If no other candidate has been asked to do so, why is it suddenly of interest with this one particular candidate?

Why does HRC have to disclose her speeches - being the only candidate in history to be asked/demanded to do so - while Bernie doesn't have to disclose his income tax returns, which is always expected of candidates?

The attempt to make this seem 'scandalous' is just laughably stupid.

As to why Hillary should release the content of those private speeches... she's asking to be President of the United States, not President of Goldman Sachs. It's perfectly reasonable for the citizens of this country to expect an honest account of a potential President's actual position on the big banks-- particularly when the candidate has taken as much money from Goldman as Hillary has.

Can YOU provide the links to where any other potential candidate has been told they MUST release the transcripts of speeches they gave as private citizens?

If you can't - and we both know you can't - can you explain why Hillary should have to do what NO OTHER CANDIDATE has ever been asked to do?

Why is Hillary being held to a different standard than every other potential presidential candidate?

Are you actually trying to suggest that people who want to know Hillary's true position on the big banks are just sexist?



She isn't being held to a special standard. She got millions from Wall Street for speeches she won't share. Sure, it's her right to keep those remarks secret. But it will cost her in public trust. And has.

I am asking you to provide the links to where any other potential candidate has been told they MUST release the transcripts of speeches they gave as private citizens.

If you can't - and we both know you can't - can you explain why Hillary should have to do what NO OTHER CANDIDATE has ever been asked to do?

Why is Hillary being held to a different standard than every other potential presidential candidate - male or female?

I'm actually surprised you're so doggedly hanging onto it, like you think you've really got something. Look, if you really want to defend a multimillionaire politician's right to be handsomely paid by Wall Street and keep you in the dark on their actual positions, that's fine.

But I doubt you'll convince many people with this 'she's being treated unfairly' line.

with crimes for....Wall Street!!

So, release the transcripts along with him releasing the names of the Wall Street Execs he is going to arrest and prosecute and what their crimes are. This should be splattered all across New York so they can get ready to go to jail. New Yorkers need to know.

Jesus Christ-- you guys have fallen way down that hole.

so name the names and crimes. Release them immediately so those New Yorkers, aka, "Wall Street" know who they are can get ready for jail.

Let's quit the little wink wink gotcha game about Wall Street as a flippant talking point and start naming names and crimes. New Yorkers need to know.

...just in case you've been in orbit for the last decade or so, systemic corruption problems have been revealed in recent years in Wall Street's relationship with the government. Every sane person in this country realizes we need real reform there (including Hillary, unless you think she's just lying on that score). Real investigations of unethical, possibly criminal practices are part of that.

You have a nice day. I'm finished typing out the painfully obvious.

points only meant to get applause, which Bernie is obviously clamoring for, there has to be a plan. Wall Street is not some entity that can be sued and prosecuted. It is made up of individuals. You can't prosecute a street. I'm tired of this haze of accusations without a plan. Bernie on Bloomburg a few months ago was asked about the names and crimes of the Wall Street execs he would prosecute and he either couldn't or wouldn't name them. That was an obvious huge red flag that he was talking points only. If he was really serious, he would be naming people he would target for prosecution. I would think you would be thrilled about the prospect of parading those people around in litigation.

I do have to laugh at you now saying that Hillary is like Bernie about Wall Street. Usually the revolution talking points say the opposite. But if Bernie is called out to back up his words, then all of a sudden, Hillary is invoked as having similar views. LOL.

And the Wall Street meltdown was 8 years ago. Does that mean anything when you hear him rail about it now like it just happened yesterday? It's mostly a talking point to invoke anger. The fact he is not willing to name Wall Street execs and their crimes just shows how he is manipulating people's emotions to get applause.

The Clintons have multi-millions in their domestic and foreign accounts to show for it, Bernie not so much. Ever stop to ask yourself why?

Didn't take long to recover did it?

What is he hiding?

You're hilarious.

It looks like proof is coming.. We can clear it up with the release of the returns.

he'll have done what many candidates did - provide his last two years of returns

Less than
Obama/biden
H Clinton (had to disclose a bunch because she was a Senator)
Kasich
Santorum
J Bush (had to disclose a bunch becase he was a governor)
Cruz

that's more than:
Bush/Cheney
Bill Clinton
Bush 1
Reagan
Carter
Ford
Nixon
Johnson
Kennedy
Eisenhower
- many posted their years in office -not before taking office

As much as
McCain/Palin
Romney/Ryan
Fiorina

more than
Gingrich
Trump

In sum, less than 6, as much or more than 15

What's the problem?

There is none.

Clinton's and the Bush's, they need to go away and spend their millions, get some of that money into circulation. Bernie is a breath of fresh air and new blood.

Just kidding, didn't mean to get your hopes up. The information has been out there for months, if you really wanted to find it you could have.

But spreading rumours is ever so much more fun, in'it?

There is plenty of information made public on Sanders. When do you think Hillary
will release those WS transcripts a voter asked for months ago at that town hall
meeting?


http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/reports.php?year=2013&cid=N00000528

I say lets do it. Will Sanders agree?

financial information.

If you think Hillary will release the WS transcripts for Bernie's earlier tax returns,
please contact her campaign..I think it would be great. I doubt she would agree,
and I see no reason why Bernie would say no.

You are aware he is one of the least wealthy members of the US Senate?

Did you look? I think we deserve the details.

You downloaded and looked through every form already?

No other explanation.

Like an ex digging through your trash because they're too cheap to hire a private detective to find something to use against you in court. I mean seriously, do these wanna-be sleuths really think Hillary hasn't spent millions trying to find dirt on Bernie? If he had so much as forgotten to tip a waitress Brock would have gone viral with it. Now they want to start a Twitter trend that he's hiding money?

Desperation squared.

Yeah, they tried to start one, and as usual, it's backfiring:

The first three tweets I found on #releasethereturns

OpenSecrets has details and what you're looking for her campaign does not
even seem interested in asking about.

Good luck, I hope they take you seriously.

faster than a hot rock if Hillary agrees to release her paid speaking transcripts.

I say let's do it. Will Clinton Agree?

Hillary--- $27,946,490.
Bernie--- $205,271

Do you REALLY want to go here?

We can.

I'm sure they're more interesting and were probably worth, per speech, more than Bernie made in a year.

Bernie has been in Congress since 1991. It is true that these disclosures have less info than tax returns do, they do provide some information.

If Bernie is on the Wall Street payroll, they are paying him minimum wage.
Maybe that is why he wants it raised?

Good try though.
lol

Senate disclosures are not tax returns.
I don't know why it should be so difficult to understand.
I just wonder what he is trying to hide.
Lets keep this thread going until he comes clean.

I'll wait for you to go though them, take notes.

What would be his reason to hide his returns from the people?

Which parts are causing you to be so concerned?

And that his campaign is being funded by Russia, Cuba, China and other COMMIE countries, that he wants to destroy America by turning it SOCIALIST, that he HONEYMOONED in the Soviet Union and who KNOWS what happened there, has a RED flag in his office which PROVES he's a fellow traveller, and was influenced by his time in a STALINIST kibbutz.

Of course I read it here so it must be true.

Name calling is rather childish don't you think.
We should try to elevate our discussions not drag them into the mud.

I'm sure that you've done so in the past when you've seen it, right?

And you are one of his supporters.
I would only expected name calling like that from Republicans.
Go figure.

You are still the first person that I have heard call B.S. a COMMIE.
Do you really think that name calling is productive?

When you can't speak for yourself and have to rely on some tired old meme than I guess you have gone as far as you can.

You could at least acknowledge who created that artwork it certainly wasn't you.

Here's some music while you wait:

So you don't have to worry about another hidden post.

Thanks for playing along.

You are doing a damn fine job of letting people know what Bernie is all about.
But tell me. Do you think he will ever quit hiding and release his tax returns.

I wonder what could be so bad when he said that he would be transparent.

Although you did accuse him of mishandling money, what did you mean by that?

How does Bernie mishandle money and why don't you trust him?

A curious thing to say.

Suggesting he can't be trusted with money is an odd implication to make without justification.

Where did you get the idea?

I'm wondering because you have an interesting posting history. Curiouser and curiouser.

Yep, I'm glad you reminded me that we can look at posting histories. You can learn a lot about someone's ideas from what they said in the past. I've seen enough, I'm done with you.

And can't figure out why Bernie would hide his tax returns from the people.

Is there some Wall Street $$$$?

So what is he hiding?

And your worried about tax returns?

Wake up!

And Bernie dumped Nuke waste in Texas

then the answer is no. However, Politifact did view the allegation of Bernie's involvement as largely accurate.

Voted to dump Vermont’s nuclear waste in a majority Latino community in Sierra Blanca, Texas

In 1998, the House of Representatives approved a compact struck between Texas, Vermont and Maine that would allow Vermont and Maine to dump low-level nuclear waste at a designated site in Sierra Blanca, Texas. Sanders, at the time representing Vermont in the House, cosponsored the bill and actively ushered it through Congress.

Located about 16 miles from the Mexican border, Sierra Blanca’s population is predominantly of Mexican ancestry. At the time, the community was about two-thirds Latino, and its residents had an average income of $8,000, according to the an article in the Bangor Daily News.

The low-level nuclear waste would include "items such as scrap metal and worker’s gloves… as well as medical gloves used in radiation treatments at hospitals," according to the Bangor Daily News. Clinton, then the First Lady, did not have a vote on the matter.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/22/fact-checking-viral-graphic-critical-bernie-sander/

And in case Politifact is an untrustworthy source in your opinion, here is an article that appeared in the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eoin-higgins/what-about-sierra-blanca-bernie_b_9233818.html

Then there is this article in the Texas Tribune.
http://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/28/Sanders-Nuclear-Waste-Votes-Divide-Texas-Activists/

Or how about a 1998 article from the Texas Observer?
http://archives.texasobserver.org/issue/1998/09/11#page=11

It is true that President Bill Clinton did sign the legislation into law, but the legislation would have never existed without Bernie Sanders involvement.

If Bernie wants to take credit for legislation that he passed, then it is entirely appropriate to include this gem of a bill.

I would like to hear from the other poster, though, since these smears should be routed out at the source.

I was juror #1

On Sun Apr 3, 2016, 11:53 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

A gish gallop to deflect from the calculated smear. How nice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1641526

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Rude comment. BMUS asked for links and after Texas Towelie posted a reply she was insulting and dismissive.

From the Urban Dictionairy:

Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more 'talking points' that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it's not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation.

Were the links listed BS, or did they represent legitimate facts including those from liberal media sources.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Apr 3, 2016, 11:59 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The comment is restrained and polite. I don't understand the alert.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am hiding the lies where I see em. And they are all over GDP. No integrity at all.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing even close to hide worthy in the OP.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: We mostly know the debate ploy. However, it's not against TOS to criticize a post for containing it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Or that New York dumped their sewage on Sierra Blanca for years?

I'm thinking a certain Jane may have kinda sorta forgotten to declare receipt of a certain $200k golden parachute. Wouldn't that be delicious . . .

a veritable feast for one with such tastes.

According to factcheck.org, "Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses."