Rat fucker Brock rings his little bell and Hillary's peeps start drooling

[Jarqui]

117. Unfortunately for you, I do not think your claim is going to get much sympathy

Both transcripts and tax returns are not required to be disclosed by law. Many past presidents, including Bill Clinton declined to produce tax returns for the years before they were elected.

Both tax returns and transcripts represent voluntary disclosure.

So transcripts and tax returns are very related in that way. That not a fallacy. It's a blunt fact.


Hillary Clinton, one of the most famous Washington politicians in her secretive behavior, has declined to be transparent in disclosing her transcripts. Bernie Sanders was transparent in disclosing his speech transcripts.

In response to the failure of the other candidate, Clinton, to be open and transparent by voluntarily disclosing her transcripts, Sanders is well be justified in declining to disclose his tax returns.

It is all about transparency and disclosure. If one candidate won't disclose and be transparent, the other candidate is entitled to respond similarly. That is what is being said here.

To cry about Sanders not voluntarily disclosing his tax returns when Clinton has declined to voluntarily disclose her transcripts is pure hypocrisy on transparency - thinking that we should have tunnel vision on the tax returns while ignoring the speech transcripts.

just because one document has a name like "transcript" and another document is named "tax return" does not mean there have to be different rules for voluntary disclosure. Because that would be a real logical fallacy - the fallacy you are trying to spin here .. but failing to accomplish.