US Politics: Celebrating and despairing too early;No poll bump for Trump yet.

[Kalbear]

The PredicitIt tracker for 2020 has Biden, Sanders and Buttigieg in basically a dead heat right now. That's remarkable. I know that it isn't indicative of anything, but Buttigieg does seem to be gaining a lot of steam and press. 

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The PredicitIt tracker for 2020 has Biden, Sanders and Buttigieg in basically a dead heat right now. That's remarkable. I know that it isn't indicative of anything, but Buttigieg does seem to be gaining a lot of steam and press. 

He does seem to be stealing Beto's mojo as the young charismatic white guy that the press loves to cover.  And unlike Beto, he doesn't have a DUI, he is a veteran from the midwest, and he didn't just lose a high profile election to a scummy Republican. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Not having a DUI is probably a net negative in Wisconsin- 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

He does seem to be stealing Beto's mojo as the young charismatic white guy that the press loves to cover.  And unlike Beto, he doesn't have a DUI, he is a veteran from the midwest, and he didn't just lose a high profile election to a scummy Republican. 

I honestly think the key difference is the amount of substance each candidate demonstrates. Beto has a great opening message, but once you get past that you start to notice that there isn’t really any there there. Mayor Pete, OTOH, has a strong answer for basically every question and he can give you his stances in a rapid fire manner. He blew me away when he went on Morning Joe.

[sologdin]

Is Trump making her the face of the Democratic party?

dunno.  is there someone so worthless as to be manipulated so readily who is not always already voting for him?

And did she de-politicize 9/11 the way Trump did with his New Zealand tweet? Was that perceptive or unfair?

doubtful. the comment "some people did something" is not an obfuscation; the US repeatedly re-enacts this theatre of grief; no one is unaware of the jingoist allegations of who did what in september 2001.  the only reason to pounce on her comments is to thought-police her when she is inartfully describing that the CAIR as protecting against an unwarranted doctrine of collective responsibility in late 2001. neither frum nor the democratic party has jurisdiction to prescribe there. not sure how it is analogous when placed into context--except that trump's offense is likewise de minimis.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Your time away from the forum has made you far too legible, @sologdin.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Sanders just released 10 years of tax returns.  

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

Is Trump making her the face of the Democratic party?

dunno.  is there someone so worthless as to be manipulated so readily who is not always already voting for him?

And did she de-politicize 9/11 the way Trump did with his New Zealand tweet? Was that perceptive or unfair?

doubtful. the comment "some people did something" is not an obfuscation; the US repeatedly re-enacts this theatre of grief; no one is unaware of the jingoist allegations of who did what in september 2001.  the only reason to pounce on her comments is to thought-police her when she is inartfully describing that the CAIR as protecting against an unwarranted doctrine of collective responsibility in late 2001. neither frum nor the democratic party has jurisdiction to prescribe there. not sure how it is analogous when placed into context--except that trump's offense is likewise de minimis.

You have been so much missed.  I know.  I said this before.  But I am saying it some more.

 

[DMC]

8 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Sanders just released 10 years of tax returns.  

Does this matter?  Harris got news yesterday for releasing 15 years.  I'm not worried about any of the candidates' returns.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Does this matter?  Harris got news yesterday for releasing 15 years.  I'm not worried about any of the candidates' returns.

Well kinda yes; it eliminates one standard critique of Sanders(that he wouldn't be transparent on this issue much like Trump), and it means now the event he does get the nomination he can actually attack Trump on this without immediately looking a total hypocrite on the topic.

In the event Harris doesn't win(which can happen) the nomination, it'd probably be a good thing that the person nominated is mostly cleared on this topic. 

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well kinda yes; it eliminates one standard critique of Sanders(that he wouldn't be transparent on this issue much like Trump), and it means now the event he does get the nomination he can actually attack Trump on this without immediately looking a total hypocrite on the topic.

So, nope, it doesn't matter.

[Varysblackfyre321]

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

So, nope, it doesn't matter.

So you don't think Trump releasing his tax returns matters? What exactly is your reasoning for why it doesn't matter if any of the Democratic candidates release their tax returns? 

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

So you don't think Trump releasing his tax returns matters? What exactly is your reasoning for why it doesn't matter if any of the Democratic candidates release their tax returns? 

*sigh*  That's not the point.  The point, and context, is there's never really been a reason to worry about any presidential candidates' tax returns since Nixon, or if there has they've been released, which is why candidates started releasing them after Nixon in the first place.  Trump, alternatively, seems quite shady in his insistence on hiding everything.  This is the very basic issue of the matter, and has been since before the 2016 election.  Perhaps you should try to grasp issues before you challenge people making points you're clearly not equipped to comprehend.

[mormont]

21 minutes ago, DMC said:

Perhaps you should try to grasp issues before you challenge people making points you're clearly not equipped to comprehend.

This seems unnecessarily patronising.

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

This seems unnecessarily patronising.

 

I'd describe it more as overly harsh, but yeah it was expressing frustration in a clear pattern of obtuse posting.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

*sigh*  That's not the point.  The point, and context, is there's never really been a reason to worry about any presidential candidates' tax returns since Nixon, or if there has they've been released, which is why candidates started releasing them after Nixon in the first place.  Trump, alternatively, seems quite shady in his insistence on hiding everything.  

Yeah Trump does look shady in not releasing his tax returns.  Which is a reason why Democratic candidates releasing their tax returns matters even more this election cycle. Especially the candidates who’ve a real chance at winning. It helps highlight unusual the lack of transparency from Trump on this issue. There’s no good reason to think  the Democratic nominee would appear less shady on this topic or be able to attack Trump on this effectively if he or she doesn’t release their tax returns. 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

This is the very basic issue of the matter, and has been since before the 2016 election.  Perhaps you should try to grasp issues before you challenge people making points you're clearly not equipped to comprehend.

Perhaps you need to give a rational for your positions rather than simply stating your position. You don’t think it matters if any of the Democratic candidates release their tax returns. It doesn’t matter if only Harris or Sanders or Gabbard does it or none of them at all Fine. But don’t get upset when someone  asks you  to explain why you don’t think it matters rather than taking your basic statement of “so nope, it doesn’t matter” as a stellar explanation that everyone should accept no questions asked.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

There’s no good reason to think  the Democratic nominee would appear less shady on this topic or be able to attack Trump on this effectively if he or she doesn’t release their tax returns. 

Uh, yeah if they were the nominee.  But not this early in the campaign.  I don't care that candidates feel like it's a good contrast or something to release a bunch of their returns this early - I think Gillibrand has released, like 15 years - but it's also unnecessary at this juncture, and it's certainly not news.  Bernie Sanders made a lot of money because he's been a national figure for, like, my entire adult life.  I'm shocked.

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Perhaps you need to actually explain your positions rather than simply stating them. You don’t think it matters if any of the Democratic candidates release their tax returns. It doesn’t matter if Harris or Sanders or Gabbard does it. Fine. But don’t get upset when someone  asks you  to explain why you think that rather than taking your basic statement of “so nope, it doesn’t matter” as a stellar explanation that everyone should accept no questions asked.

Uh, you're the one that responded to me.  I explained why I didn't think it was news - I wasn't worried about any of the Dem candidates' returns in the first place.  You responded saying it does matter for reasons I thought were either wrong, absurd, or both -- and moreover ignored my point for why it wasn't news, so I expressed as much succinctly.  You should try that last part some time.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

Does this matter?  Harris got news yesterday for releasing 15 years.  I'm not worried about any of the candidates' returns.

I mean, I'd say it matters in the context of the primary, as he's already been on the receiving end of criticism by other candidates or their proxies for not releasing his returns yet, so that takes a line of attack off the table.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I mean, I'd say it matters in the context of the primary, as he's already been on the receiving end of criticism by other candidates or their proxies for not releasing his returns yet, so that takes a line of attack off the table.

Disagree.  If every candidate responded to every unwarranted criticism than that's all the campaign would be.  Bernie's finances have been fairly damn open for a very long time, the criticism itself was invalid.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Disagree.  If every candidate responded to every unwarranted criticism than that's all the campaign would be.  Bernie's finances have been fairly damn open for a very long time, the criticism itself was invalid.

What’s odd to me is that he was so reluctant to release his returns in 2016 given how uninteresting they are. But otherwise I agree, this is all one giant nothing burger, and if an individual candidate cannot paint Trump as being hyper shady for not releasing his returns, they shouldn’t be the nominee.