2016 Postmortem

Skwmom

(12,685 posts) Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:09 AM Apr 2016

They've opened the door so let's talk about what is in the Clintons tax returns they bragged about

releasing.

It's not like it will remain a secret in the general election.

Let's talk speech and CONSULTING fees.

And, then there is the Big Dog himself, William Jefferson Clinton, yes former president, Bill Clinton, who "served" for five years as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, the world's largest for-profit chain of colleges, 84 at last count, many in the developing world. What is a former president of the U.S. doing in a place like this? Guess.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/the_predatory_for-profit_college_industry_and_its.html

About Laureate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511181495

And if you want to see an example of "unmitigated gall" read the following:

In Iowa, Clinton Stresses Harms to Students From Predatory For-Profit Colleges

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/video-in-iowa-clinton-str_b_7065662.html

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

They've opened the door so let's talk about what is in the Clintons tax returns they bragged about (Original Post) Skwmom Apr 2016 OP

They've been out there to be looked at for nearly a year now. Arkansas Granny Apr 2016 #1

Plenty. But the silence by the corporate media is deafening. Skwmom Apr 2016 #3

Okay, let's speculate about what Bermie's deductions are for. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #2

The Clintons took charitable deductions for the Clinton Foundation Skwmom Apr 2016 #4

Let's see. It was a $50,000 deduction so maybe it was a cash advance so he could Nanjeanne Apr 2016 #5

People could speculate all kinds of nasty things if they wanted to. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #12

I'm going to repeat this again Verrrrrrrrry Slooooooowly. HE WILL. Nanjeanne Apr 2016 #13

You confuse a lack of naivete for stupidity. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #14

Yes he hasn't produced them. Saying it over and over isn't naive or stupid. It's silly. Nanjeanne Apr 2016 #15

I didn't vote for Clinton in 2008. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #16

But, you see, we are able to do that because MineralMan Apr 2016 #6

Oh what transparency when your buddies in the corporate media won't cover it. Where is Maddow? Skwmom Apr 2016 #8

My buddies? I know absolutely nobody who MineralMan Apr 2016 #9

The reference is to Clinton. Maddow is her media buddy. Skwmom Apr 2016 #10

#ReleaseTheReturms. stonecutter357 Apr 2016 #7

Let's make Clinton's returns common knowledge so voters will be informed. n/t Skwmom Apr 2016 #11

Arkansas Granny

(31,523 posts)

1. They've been out there to be looked at for nearly a year now.

Reply to Skwmom (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:16 AM

Apr 2016

Has anything been found?

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)

3. Plenty. But the silence by the corporate media is deafening.

Reply to Arkansas Granny (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:18 AM

Apr 2016

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

2. Okay, let's speculate about what Bermie's deductions are for.

Reply to Skwmom (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:17 AM

Apr 2016

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)

4. The Clintons took charitable deductions for the Clinton Foundation

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:21 AM

Apr 2016

that paid a salary to Blumenthal,etc.

Nanjeanne

(4,974 posts)

5. Let's see. It was a $50,000 deduction so maybe it was a cash advance so he could

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:21 AM

Apr 2016

Attend a Clinton fundraiser.

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

12. People could speculate all kinds of nasty things if they wanted to.

Reply to Nanjeanne (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:04 PM

Apr 2016

He should be transparent and remove the questions.

Nanjeanne

(4,974 posts)

13. I'm going to repeat this again Verrrrrrrrry Slooooooowly. HE WILL.

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:05 PM

Apr 2016

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

14. You confuse a lack of naivete for stupidity.

Reply to Nanjeanne (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:08 PM

Apr 2016

He has not produced them.

He has had the better part of a year to produce them.

He has not given a date by which he will produce them.

There was no indication he would ever produce them without public pressure.

While his "I'll get around to it" is enough for his unquestioning, adoring followers, it is not for people who retain a healthy skepticism of politicians.

Nanjeanne

(4,974 posts)

15. Yes he hasn't produced them. Saying it over and over isn't naive or stupid. It's silly.

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:17 PM

Apr 2016

You can keep repeating these things ad nauseum in every single thread - but the reality is he isn't going to release them TODAY. Some people like you care greatly that he hasn't done it yet. Others don't care that he hasn't but would like him to and are willing to wait. Others don't care at all.

But the hypocrisy is for someone supporting Clinton to be going on and on about this when in 2008 Hillary didn't release hers until almost all the primaries were over. Should Bernie have learned from her mistake? Maybe. But it's not a huge deal and he will get them out and you will have a chance to look at them. It's the endless beating of a dead horse and the hypocrisy about what Clinton has done in the past not meaning anything because Bernie has to do what she did now.

You aren't going to get your answer right this minute. You can bemoan he should have done this or that and he is such a hypocrite for not putting them out at the start of the campaign till you are blue in the face. I get it. It's a priority for you. You are not voting for Sanders so let it go. Even if he releases them this afternoon, you aren't voting for him.

My vote isn't based on reading what Bernie's $50,000 in deductions were for.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

16. I didn't vote for Clinton in 2008.

Reply to Nanjeanne (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:23 PM

Apr 2016

Soon (22 days and counting) the transcripts and tax returns issues will be abandoned as matters of public interest.

Thankfully.

MineralMan

(146,324 posts)

6. But, you see, we are able to do that because

Reply to Skwmom (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:27 AM

Apr 2016

those tax returns were released. Transparency was maintained. So, by all means, discuss their contents if you choose to do so. But you can do that only because they were released by the candidate. Please do not forget that.

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)

8. Oh what transparency when your buddies in the corporate media won't cover it. Where is Maddow?

Reply to MineralMan (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:45 AM

Apr 2016

Oh, that's right, she is too busy cheerleading for Clinton.

MineralMan

(146,324 posts)

9. My buddies? I know absolutely nobody who

Reply to Skwmom (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:49 AM

Apr 2016

is or ever has been a journalist specializing in politics. Although I did work for 30 years as a journalist, my fields of work were in computer science and other mundane subject areas.

I don't know a single person who has ever written about politics professionally.

So, no buddies there. As much as I'd enjoy having dinner or something with Rachel Maddow, that is certainly not going to happen.