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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

getagrip_already

(17,498 posts)
42. But don't primary voters deserve to know this information before nominating a potentially damaged ca
Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:49 AM
Feb 2019

But don't primary voters deserve to know this information before nominating a potentially damaged candidate?

There is only one reason to NOT release them early. You are HIDING something you don't want to deal with.

Once a candidate makes it to the nomination, it's too LATE to find out there is something damaging in there.

We need to know before we vote. Not after. We deserve the best possible candidate; not one that is hiding something to get to the nomination when it's too late to do anything about.

Recommendations

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

LOL!! Love it!!! Bengus81 Feb 2019 #1
applies to bernie also..... getagrip_already Feb 2019 #25
CA Legislature passed a bill similar to this but Gov. Brown veto'ed it. /NT sdfernando Feb 2019 #37
Never heard that one before, and I thought I'd heard them all. True, that... lindysalsagal Feb 2019 #39
Yes. But I understand his stance (it wasn't personal, because he wasn't going to be running anymore) C Moon Feb 2019 #60
I think it was a weak argument sdfernando Feb 2019 #68
I agree with you, but I think what he was saying is that this would open the flood gates for OTHER C Moon Feb 2019 #69
getagrip....Bernie zentrum Feb 2019 #38
But don't primary voters deserve to know this information before nominating a potentially damaged ca getagrip_already Feb 2019 #42
Good answer. Thanks for your quick comeback. politicaljunkie41910 Feb 2019 #49
I guess by zentrum Feb 2019 #58
The 2 page return Bernie released would satisfy this rule. But why r u so fixed on his tax onit2day Feb 2019 #59
Agree!! diva77 Feb 2019 #61
Me too!! zentrum Feb 2019 #66
Hi onit2day zentrum Feb 2019 #65
Yes, they should. True Blue American Feb 2019 #62
Only if he wins the primaries Bradical79 Feb 2019 #70
he should release everything before the primaries.... getagrip_already Feb 2019 #72
New Jersey. Great idea! California_Republic Feb 2019 #2
Useless. The Orange Dipshit would never win New Jersey anyway. 3Hotdogs Feb 2019 #32
I'm in Northern NJ doompatrol39 Feb 2019 #41
I forgot about northern Passaic and Sussex. 3Hotdogs Feb 2019 #57
Essex and Bergen are pretty blue. doompatrol39 Feb 2019 #67
Legal challenge will sadly go beyond 2020 WiseElder Feb 2019 #3
Not necessarily Major Nikon Feb 2019 #6
Ooohhh not fooled Feb 2019 #18
Except that presidential qualifications SoCalNative Feb 2019 #45
Anything can be challenged, the question is how far they'd get Major Nikon Feb 2019 #48
There is also no popular election for president in the Constitution. Angleae Feb 2019 #63
Well worth fighting for and expanding to many states. lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #15
They should consider expanding the deadline further out than 50 days before the general election. politicaljunkie41910 Feb 2019 #51
Kicketty Kickin' Faux pas Feb 2019 #4
There's no law that says Trump has to release his tax returns. SergeStorms Feb 2019 #5
I've seen posters here claiming the Constitution says you can't indict. lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #16
Right you are. SergeStorms Feb 2019 #54
It's silent on that issue paleotn Feb 2019 #55
Au contraire. Article 1 Section 3 lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #56
State Senate. What State??? TryLogic Feb 2019 #7
Isn't the article about New Jersey ? rickford66 Feb 2019 #10
You have to click through to figure that out. Would be nice to include in the OP. lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #17
Look at the third line of the post. rickford66 Feb 2019 #19
Oops. lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #20
No problem rickford66 Feb 2019 #23
St Bernie too would have to release his taxes..... bottomofthehill Feb 2019 #8
Yup. If he's even on the ballot. KPN Feb 2019 #9
The dem party should make it a primary requirement... n/t getagrip_already Feb 2019 #26
I think they have haven't they? KPN Feb 2019 #27
not as of the 2016 election.... getagrip_already Feb 2019 #30
I'm talking about for 2020. KPN Feb 2019 #33
haven't heard but.... getagrip_already Feb 2019 #35
That law should True Blue American Feb 2019 #11
Trump would give up his place on the NJ ballot before releasing his returns. thesquanderer Feb 2019 #12
New York was going to do the same thing Danascot Feb 2019 #13
Whoa! K&R ffr Feb 2019 #14
Democrats in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, & other swing states need to introduce this.... Julian Englis Feb 2019 #21
Exactly! 👍 Duppers Feb 2019 #31
This is a New Jersey proposal Shoonra Feb 2019 #22
About time, but I suspect that there will be challenges to it before long. We need this for... SWBTATTReg Feb 2019 #24
more than likely will be ruled unconstitutional.... beachbum bob Feb 2019 #28
There are already ballot access laws in every state Bradical79 Feb 2019 #78
THIS needs to be done in every state Duppers Feb 2019 #29
While I Agree... BlueIdaho Feb 2019 #34
True. Thank you. Duppers Feb 2019 #46
Happy to help. BlueIdaho Feb 2019 #50
Comment could have been added to make it clear this is New Jersey without clicking thru. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2019 #36
Would help if you say which stte question everything Feb 2019 #40
California needs to bring this up again and pass it this time..... getagrip_already Feb 2019 #43
I'm thinking the would be a 8-1, 9-0 ruling in SCOTUS as unconstitutional if it got there. AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #44
Not sure why that would be Bradical79 Feb 2019 #71
Simple....Constitution...Re: POTUS elegibility. AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #74
It doesn't affect the qualifications though Bradical79 Feb 2019 #75
Totally incorrect.."It doesn't affect the qualifications though" It would do Exactly that. AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #76
And you're wrong. Bradical79 Feb 2019 #77
Requirement for POTUS eligibilty is in the Constitution AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #79
Except the people aren't actually electing a president. Angleae Feb 2019 #80
"..provided it does not violate some other federal/state statute.." AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #81
This is awesome and necessary. akraven Feb 2019 #47
K&R stonecutter357 Feb 2019 #52
Never happen.. Maxheader Feb 2019 #53
Good start, but has to be a state that matters in the general zaj Feb 2019 #64
It's a bill. zanana1 Feb 2019 #73
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Lawmakers Pass Bill to Fo...»Reply #42