General Discussion

pnwmom

(110,261 posts)

11. Why not? Because private people are entitled to privacy. Public servants need to give

Reply to -je (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 27, 2017, 11:33 PM

Nov 2017

some of that up, because of the possibility of conflict of interest.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

111 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The DNC and/or state orgs should change their rules [View all] pnwmom Nov 2017 OP

100% On THis Me. Nov 2017 #1

Hillary Clinton provided 10 years; no rules necessary. brooklynite Nov 2017 #2

I think they've made something like 30 years public? Hortensis Nov 2017 #22

Five minimum, yes, seems reasonable... but, of course, the more transparency, the better. InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2017 #102

Not everyone does...I think five years should be the minimum required. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #68

That should be the minimum. NCTraveler Nov 2017 #3

Any candidate who only provides "summaries" ... NurseJackie Nov 2017 #64

He is one of the least transparent. NCTraveler Nov 2017 #65

Agreed Gothmog Nov 2017 #4

Unconditional GulfCoast66 Nov 2017 #5

The Democratic party CAN set qualifications for party backing. pnwmom Nov 2017 #6

Indeed. (nt) ehrnst Nov 2017 #50

Ballot access laws are going to be an issue Gothmog Nov 2017 #8

True...but, the party can set the rules. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #70

Exactly! rogue emissary Nov 2017 #7

Why not work on campaign finance laws... -je Nov 2017 #9

Why not? Because private people are entitled to privacy. Public servants need to give pnwmom Nov 2017 #11

Running for president should have the same low standards as having any old job? bettyellen Nov 2017 #51

ahh..the old, go for the "extreme" example. BoneyardDem Nov 2017 #81

that may not mean what you think it means... -je Nov 2017 #89

now you're knocking on the conspiracy theory door... BoneyardDem Nov 2017 #90

notice the deflection of this post -je Nov 2017 #91

I directly responded and you deflected with yet another extreme example BoneyardDem Nov 2017 #96

I'll go you one better RandomAccess Nov 2017 #10

The GOP will block this Gothmog Nov 2017 #79

No reason a candidate shouldn't do this mcar Nov 2017 #12

No GOOD reason, you mean. n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #13

So public servants have no absolute right to privacy then? -je Nov 2017 #14

No, they don't have an "absolute right to privacy." pnwmom Nov 2017 #16

Does the U.S. constitution have an entitlement to the right to privacy for citizens? -je Nov 2017 #17

Some of the important things we'd learn from his tax returns. pnwmom Nov 2017 #18

sorry red herring -je Nov 2017 #19

You're mixing issues. EVERYONE has a right to privacy, but EVERYONE doesn't necessarily.... George II Nov 2017 #61

I think most people dont have a clue whats actually on a tax return Lee-Lee Nov 2017 #24

I don't support this - I'm too much of a small d democrat. Ultimately, it's up to the voters to Midwestern Democrat Nov 2017 #15

Then you should have no problem letting big D Democrats decide who can run for our partys stevenleser Nov 2017 #21

Exactly. Adrahil Nov 2017 #73

I'm open to letting the American people vote on this Tavarious Jackson Nov 2017 #23

There should also be a rule that they had to have become a Democrat stevenleser Nov 2017 #20

I keep asking how the DNC could set such a rule and I keep not getting an answer. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #25

Its very simple. Any delegates awarded to non sanctioned candidates arent seated stevenleser Nov 2017 #27

That would be a very simple DISASTER for the Democrats Jim Lane Nov 2017 #32

Nope, you are creating a totally unrealistic scenario to force your point stevenleser Nov 2017 #35

Fortunately, I think most Democratic Party leaders are too smart to follow your suggestion. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #36

Fortunately, I think most of them realize the disaster that happened in 2016 precisely because such stevenleser Nov 2017 #55

I was the DNC RBC meeting in May 2008. lapucelle Nov 2017 #49

Thanks for the account. I am totally not surprised that it was misrepresented by the other poster. stevenleser Nov 2017 #56

As explained in #57, "the other poster" (a/k/a "that person") didn't misrepresent a thing. (n/t) Jim Lane Nov 2017 #66

Yes, it was. nt stevenleser Nov 2017 #95

The RBC decision you cite was overturned at the Convention Jim Lane Nov 2017 #57

That's not quite accurate. lapucelle Nov 2017 #86

Thanks, your clip of Ickes strongly SUPPORTS the point I made Jim Lane Nov 2017 #92

Ickes is not the Democratic Party. What actually happened refutes your point. nt stevenleser Nov 2017 #94

Actually it doesn't illustrate your claim in any way. lapucelle Nov 2017 #97

The convention did not proceed as you describe Jim Lane Nov 2017 #98

As any lawyer could tell you, lapucelle Nov 2017 #99

Thank you for recognizing the question of precedent Jim Lane Nov 2017 #100

And thank you for recognizing that a possible disaster was averted in 2008 lapucelle Nov 2017 #101

There are two separate issues-(i) state law on ballot access and (ii) party rules/platform Gothmog Nov 2017 #28

Actually the actual delegates are chosen at the state conventions Gothmog Nov 2017 #31

The method of delegate selection is a separate question. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #33

Re-read my post-there are two sets of rules (i) ballot access laws and (ii) state/DNC rules Gothmog Nov 2017 #34

If you vote in a GOP primary removed? -je Nov 2017 #37

The party is allowed under the right of association to set rules for its leaders Gothmog Nov 2017 #38

I get the rule you are stating. -je Nov 2017 #39

The Republican party tried this "tactic" in my county last September. lapucelle Nov 2017 #48

I saw Limbaugh's operation chaos in operation in 2008 and it was disgusting Gothmog Nov 2017 #58

"Re-read my post" is usually unhelpful, and such is the case here Jim Lane Nov 2017 #42

Nicely done good post. -je Nov 2017 #43

You need to read the material posted Gothmog Nov 2017 #54

Access to the data base and access to the ballot are totally different questions Jim Lane Nov 2017 #62

Again you need to read the material posted Gothmog Nov 2017 #75

Your information about STATE LAWS directly supports my point. Thank you. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #87

We could start by... Adrahil Nov 2017 #74

Who is "We"? That's not a nitpick -- it's my whole question. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #78

It's not complicated.... Adrahil Nov 2017 #83

Suppose a candidate who doesn't meet your criterion wins the primary. Jim Lane Nov 2017 #93

Openness and transparency. yallerdawg Nov 2017 #26

Democratic members of Congress have forced votes on this issue Gothmog Nov 2017 #29

I know I would never support one. yallerdawg Nov 2017 #30

How does all this tax return thing get Dem's elected? -je Nov 2017 #40

It reduces the chances of a corrupt candidate being elected. And it gives the Democrat pnwmom Nov 2017 #41

What about the moral standing... -je Nov 2017 #44

All of that is far more likely to be accomplished by a non-corrupt President. n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #45

dismissing local political offices and congressional midterms? -je Nov 2017 #46

Yeah that's what you're doing when you call for releasing income/taxes of every US citizen. n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #47

You don't seriously think it's an either or proposition? It's not, that's ridiculous in fact. bettyellen Nov 2017 #52

Trump has made the refusal to release tax returns an issue Gothmog Nov 2017 #59

A Democratic candidate who supports Trumps position on releasing tax returns is not a moral person Gothmog Nov 2017 #60

running a democrat candidate against sitting democrats -je Dec 2017 #103

2016 is over-I am talking about 2020 Gothmog Dec 2017 #104

"a democrat candidate"? Really? George II Dec 2017 #105

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2017 #107

As in "just a fucking idiot"? Really? George II Dec 2017 #109

That person disrupted... poorly. nt stevenleser Dec 2017 #110

Whats a Democrat candidate? lapucelle Dec 2017 #106

Post removed Post removed Dec 2017 #108

Either admins or MIRT had enough of that persons schtick and... stevenleser Dec 2017 #111

This should be a no brainer. The main reason some are arguing against it is because a certain MrsCoffee Nov 2017 #53

that act of arguing against transparency, seem so transparent BoneyardDem Nov 2017 #63

Yep Gothmog Nov 2017 #84

I agree. Demsrule86 Nov 2017 #67

It would just be symbolic. Our people historically have always released years of returns voluntarily phleshdef Nov 2017 #69

Bernie was the exception. He only released 2 pages of one year's return. n/t pnwmom Nov 2017 #71

Bernie was never nominated so thats a non-point. phleshdef Nov 2017 #72

New Jersey and other states will have ballot access laws in place by 2020 Gothmog Nov 2017 #77

No. phleshdef Nov 2017 #80

Same here Gothmog Nov 2017 #82

No, it's not. I think the Dem party should require people participating in its primaries pnwmom Nov 2017 #85

Agreed. Clean up your house before running for office. LisaM Nov 2017 #76

It would be nice, but it's not that big of a priority now imo... Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #88