the better question would be Why ought such a release be optional?
It's been an 'option' since first done by Nixon pursuant to his declaration that he was not a crook.
As a matter of political expedience, the practice of releasing tax returns has been raised to the level of habit and expectation, but not to the level of legal requirement, which is the question raised here.
yes, Ron, yet I think mine is the more appropriate query (no one need agree, of course)
Why Can't A Pompous Idiot Posting Nothing More Than A Bombastic Title And Vacuous One Sentence Query Be Bothered To Proofread Either the Title Or The Sentence To Correct Glaring Typographical And Grammatical Errors Even A Precocious First Grader Wouldn't Have Overlooked?
I'm no fan of the Beast "45", but, absent a criminal conviction, no one should be required to release any personal or financial information to the public.
@N; Thanks for the heads up.
Unlike many here, I don't conflate ego and error
I stand corrected.
Sorry, Ronny, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, news flash: nearly every comment and post you write here is an egregious conflation of ego with error.
Ron: given the possibility of conflicts of interest, yes they should.
1) They should if they do not divest themselves of all business interests before entering office.
2) I'm not talking about a "blind trust" either.
Join Our Salon
Welcome toOur Salon
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Added by nanatehay
Our Salon On Facebook
© 2017 Created by lorianne.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.