Again, nothing substantive to say, and barely a complete sentence...
Are you going to explain what the previous goalpost was, and what it was moved to, and why?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Are you going to explain what the previous goalpost was, and what it was moved to, and why?
You mocked the poster when they had a legitimate point
I'd argue that a full tax return is a bit better than almost literally nothing from Trump, but I agree those are pretty meager offerings.
When do candidates typically release tax returns? In the primaries or during the actual election cycle?
Well apparently Beto should have done it today, on literally the first day of his campaign, whereas the Sanders family was too busy campaigning in 2016 to get around to it because that would involve going to Vermont and firing up TurboTax and how can anyone really be expected to do that
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-04-11/jane-sanders-we-will-release-full-tax-returns
for some reason I was expecting a bad response, hence the "nvm" edit, but this is acceptable
but y'all bet your asses that I'll harp on beto if he doesn't do the thing we're expecting of everyone else, it's way too early in the game to judge him the same way we're judging a 2016 candidate who still hasn't done it though
Edit: Correction to my correction, the tax return listed on this site is Trump's 1040.
https://www.taxnotes.com/presidential-tax-returns
Also, Gillibrand has released 11, Warren 10, Biden 18, fucking Jeb! 32. In general, though, in the modern day people release it in the primaries.
To be pedantic, posters did use the plural "tax returns," which implies more than a single year, as a single year of filing is referred to (per the IRS) as a "tax return" (not plural). To suggest that is moving the goalposts is ignoring the specific language being used (as well as decades of precedent).
That's not being pedantic... besides the decades of precedent that you noted, I specifically used not just the plural but the phrase FULL TAX RETURNS
turns out the real goalpost shifters were the friends we made along the way
This thread got awfully quiet all of a sudden... where is the usual stream of wisecracks?
they lost the goalposts and are furiously emailing amazon support asking for a return shipment
Guess how many tax returns Al Gore released according to that site?
Mod post - chill out
Al Gore released 8 years. So I am not sure how that helps Bernie's extreme outlier of 1
Fuck off with this shit. How is acceptable to continually insult supporters of bernie in this thread? Imagine if bernie supporters insulted Kamala's supporters constantly.
The site seems to be wrong on Al Gore, he released 8 tax returns.
https://www.politifact.com/florida/...presidential-candidate-has-released-most-tax/
Excellent try at a gotcha, though.
I figured it was inaccurate, that's why I said "according to that site". Just thought it was amusing, chill out friends
I don't understand. A democratic socialist would definitely want to nationalize where they can, right?
Not that it really matters, since Bernie would mostly function like a social democrat as president, given the hyper capitalist nature of the States. Plus, he's gonna be too busy dealing with other shit to be nationalizing stuff willy nilly.
User Banned (1 day): ignoring modpost
A Bernie fan in this very thread this morning got banned for making sexist insults against young girls who support Kamala though.....
Yeah, sorry. The site links directly to the tax returns it cites, so the ones they have are legit.
User Banned (1 day): ignoring modpost
He didn't get banned for sexist attack, though. Stop lying
See, the way that's phrased is misleading. Like it's a difference between having 95% of votes aligned with dems and 93%.
Question, do you all have a plan to make staff communications more visible whenever they get posted and someone refreshes/enters a thread? There are way too many times these kinds of posts go unnoticed and I've been banned before simply due to the lack of their visibility. Just curious if there's a plan to improve the visibility of staff communications, perhaps similar to how the site's update notifications appear.
Yeah but it sounds less impressive when you put it like that...
He got banned for that post which was blatantly sexist. But okay. Anyone can read the post and see for themselves it got him banned lol.
I'm looking at the ban reason and it has nothing to do with sexism. They usually put that in there if it was.
There already is. See at the top and bottom of the thread where it says "Staff posts"? It's right there as soon as it's made.
EDIT: Also, there's generally a decent period for people to refresh and see it. We try and give people every opportunity to not get banned for ignoring a modpost.
I genuinely did not see those, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. But I don't want to derail the thread, so I will take my concerns to the appropriate thread for this topic.
See now this is shifting goalposts... Only 25 percent of respondents ranked "socialist" as a desirable trait for a candidate.
From a few days ago:
U.S. Voters Don't Want Socialist or Very Old President: Poll
Hey how about one who is BOTH!
(And by the way, for anyone who thinks Bernie is moving the overton window, that dropped to 25% from 27%)
Mention that and you'll be told Bernie is a democratic socialist not a socialist socialist, with the implication being that the former doesn't have to worry about that baggage.
Now we see that Bernie used to support seizing the means of production, even if he doesn't anymore
https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1106251433895186433
So either he's changed, or he's lying about it.
Right now the Republicans are barely attacking Bernie, they want him to win because that's their best shot in the general election (out of the major candidates). But eventually this stuff will be everywhere. He didn't get that treatment in 2016 because he wasn't the nominee, he got to go out while still popular.
But whether he's changed or he's lying, it's not going to be hard to paint him as a socialist socialist in the general election, where 25% makes Trump's 40% look like Bush post-9/11.
So whether it's because he's changed or because he "would mostly function as a social democrat" or because "he'd be too busy dealing with other shit to be nationalizing stuff"... it would never happen. But hey at least the probability Trump gets another 4 years would skyrocket, so odds are he'd never get the chance to even try!
Last edited:
You can just PM me, it's fine. There was a whole big post outlining threadmarks when they launched, it got stickied and everything. Besides that, like I said, we tend to give a pretty decent buffer window for people. I won't tell you how long simply because I don't want anyone taking advantage.
EDIT: If you want to know more about threadmarks feel free to PM. I actually really like the tool as it lets an OP easily update their own thread with important information without having to edit the OP.
I remember when we were convinced a Trump victory was good for Clinton.
Good times.
I'm not sure how seriously to take polls like this when they directly contradict other polls/election results. Biden is very old and is extremely popular. Bernie is very old and is extremely popular. Trump is very old and is president.
1) that link is broken
2) you keep posting the same tweet about his backstory multiple times a page
To be fair, Trump was probably Hillary's best chance to win.
Some people get too carried away in taking polls seriously. They matter, sure, but they're not the be-all-end-all and often, as you say, just blatantly contradict the data. Hillary's entire campaign was basically built on this kind of highly "objective" data-driven campaigning where you more or less have Robbie Mook saying "we don't need to really campaign in Wisconsin or Michigan. The data!" Sometimes people think they know what they actually are willing to vote for and they're not - or vice-versa.
Yes. I believed that she'd be very likely to lose against normal candidates even during the election. I also didn't believe it was possible for voters to be so stupid as to vote in Trump rather than boring Hillary. I mean, I was a cynic when it came to voters before, but now...
I think it was. Poor Hillary just got hit with the comey surprise.
I voted for her and all but we probably saw two different things in 2016. I saw the awakening of the American Id as it manifested in Trump, Jeb! was not going to be the dude to bring it out although maybe he could've rode the wave past Clinton.
Yeah sure, just saying it's ironic when I remember how typical Dems saw Trump. Saying the Reps want Bernie is pretty strange to me. Where comes this foresight, and where was it in 2016? Did they want Bernie in 2016 as well?
Oops. I already posted a suggestion in the new features thread before seeing this post. Sorry.
I actually think the opposite - Trump was the only Republican who could've won in 2016 over Hillary (also yes, he would've beat Bernie because low info voters didn't know he was selling them BS and was still attempting to be less extreme on fiscal issues than most Republican's).
I saw people sitting on their asses as a four alarm fire was sounding because Abuela was a corrupt, boring old stooge who didn't "excite" them enough. You saw the same type of thing in Gore V Bush, Kerry V Bush, Dukakis etc. Except, in those cases, the Republican did better than Trump did. If the dems don't elect someone who can talk them into being excited about the future in the era of TV they lose. Bottom-line. The dems can't bring a boring policy wonk to the finish line. They're not capable of it.
- Status