??? What you talking about!!! He was Vice President for both terms, and CIA was before he went into politics.

An interesting hangover from Nixon's travails is that he was the first candidate in decades to release his tax returns to the public, to prove that he was "not a crook."

Since then, every major party candidate has released his or her tax returns. In 2012, Mitt Romney faced significant criticism for releasing only partial returns - they were damaging enough given his wealth and relatively tiny tax burden - and the inference behind his refusal to release full returns was that there was greater damage to be done by releasing than the negative image of holding back the full returns.

Clinton has come under fire for the outrageous speaking fees she has been trousering from Wall Street; something which became known only because of her tax returns being posted on her campaign website.

So this has been S.O.P. in Presidential politics since the 1960s, that is, until Donald J. Trump. He has refused to release anything of his personal taxes, claiming that he cannot because he's under audit. While it's impossible to verify if this is true or not, it makes no difference. These are not court-sealed documents; they're his personal financial records and he can do with them as he wishes.

He has already claimed to be stinking rich - it was one of the pillars of his primary campaign - so he doesn't have the same concerns as Romney over proving that fact. So why not release? Speculation revolves around: (1) the likelihood that he's nowhere near as rich as he claims (Forbes puts him at less than half of what he says he's worth) and the returns will prove it; (2) that his net income is tiny because of how leveraged he is believed to be; (3) that his bragged about charitable donations aren't anywhere close to his claims, and may be non-existent; and/or (4) that it will show just how much he is in hock to Russians.

Now, he can dispell any and all speculation by releasing the returns. Yet he continues to hold them back. Thus the endless proliferation of theories about what unspeakable horrors lie therein.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Precisely.....If this were the other way around the lefties on here would be up in arms....It just proves what we already know....Most of them don't care about fairness or balance, even within institutions paid for by a majority household collective tax, just as long as the bias is something they agree with.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I'm pretty sure we are one of those free-loaders too. We had to be told to increase our defence budget by NATO.
Navy is 19 ships, no aircraft carriers - only support ship being decommissioned.
Army pretty much unable to carry out current duties as shown in recent conflicts. Not due to lack of trying I may add - but due to cutbacks and lack of numbers and equipment.
RAF not too bad in all fairness.
Left/ Right they have all cut defence budgets. Corbyn is probably more naïve than May but she won't be increasing the defence budget. More likely more Tory stealth cut-backs.

I think Trump's current stance on making NATO pay or not helping out is a little worrying, in particular with constant Russian sabre wagging.. He seems to think war is a profit making company business or the USA shouldn't get involved.
In balance, I have to suspect that Clinton is inept as shown at Benghazi.

Back to topic, one has to wonder whether Britain has always considered itself less Republican than the US and has a natural affinity with Democrat politics - which are closest to most of our own? The BBC is undoubtedly PC and Liberal (even with a smattering of old Marxists) so are pretty much bound to not support the capitalist. I used to love Clarkson's attitude towards the BBC and believed there was a hint of truth in it.

Red and Blue Army!

I would agree though that the UK isn't republican by majority nature.

However Trump is quite left wing on quite a few republican areas....of course you wouldn't know that if you followed much of the coverage on him.

I'm drawn to Trump partly because of the lack of fairness and objectivity in how the media treat him.....of course I'm repelled by some of the stupidity of some of his comments but I'm also attracted to the straight talking....even if some of it is plainly BS.

Clinton is the establishment and more of the same.....I can't be bothered with that...especially as she is corrupt as hell.....Her daughter's wedding cost three million dollars....Oh how profitable public service is.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

There's a bit more to it than just the super delegate issue.

They're not accusations. They're all provable. Perhaps it's worth actually looking in to, as having a person in power who's done the things she has is quite serious, and not just Americans. If Trump had done one of the things she's done, he would have rightly not have even been in the presidential race in the first place.

Trump may say stupid things, but she's done truly criminal things and gets away with it, mainly as she helped put her pal Loretta Lynch as attorney general and has the backing of the media.