2020 Democratic Nominee

[Guest Lobo]

Yep, it's part of it.  A big part.  But if you think they're the same...you're way behind the curve.  

[bad_teammate 13,508]

This is good energy, Kamala. Hell yes.

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

She released 15 years of tax returns today.

[Skyline 325]

I've heard some bad things about Kamala's campaign from a couple friends who are working on other campaigns in Iowa. Mostly that she was really late to  hiring staffers in both Iowa and NH. She was easily beaten by Bernie and Warren, who made it a priority to fill out their staffs with well respected managers. 

It's not something that can sink Kamala, but it would make her life difficult if she falls significantly behind.

[bad_teammate 13,508]

I doubt she's going to ignore Iowa and NH. Giuliani '08 taught everyone an important lesson lol

[Js1 87,176]

Cool - media "TRUMP $30 MILLION 1Q FUNDRAISING FAR OUTPACES DEMOCRATS!"

reality: Trump $30 million; Democrats (combined) $64.5 million

DOOOMED! 

[Skyline 325]

11 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I doubt she's going to ignore Iowa and NH. Giuliani '08 taught everyone an important lesson lol

She didn't ignore it, but Kamala was a month late against Warren, and maybe 3 weeks behind Bernie in setting up her staff in those states. 

[Js1 87,176]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Cool - media "TRUMP $30 MILLION 1Q FUNDRAISING FAR OUTPACES DEMOCRATS!"

reality: Trump $30 million; Democrats (combined) $64.5 million

DOOOMED! 

Also LOL, let's go back in time 8 years:

Quote

The total amount Obama raised in the first three months of 2011 also amounted to more than twice the $35 million raised collectively by the announced field of Republican presidential candidates. The Republican National Committee has raised an additional $30 million.

Republicans downplayed the numbers, arguing that Obama is simply reaping the financial benefits of incumbency at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.

“We always knew Obama was the best fundraiser in history,” said RNC press secretary Kirsten Kuklowski. “Unfortunately for Americans, it’s clear that despite his claims that he’s focused on creating jobs, his priority is saving his own. Obama will need every penny of his billion dollars to defend his abysmal economic message.”

 

[bad_teammate 13,508]

20 minutes ago, Skyline said:

She didn't ignore it, but Kamala was a month late against Warren, and maybe 3 weeks behind Bernie in setting up her staff in those states. 

Yep. Organization matters.

[bad_teammate 13,508]

With two Texas boys on offer, Austin's mayor endorses Pete.

lol what a jerk

[bad_teammate 13,508]

The top 4 are all white men who combine for 70%.

If Joe's voters were split up by their stated second choice...

1) Bernie - 36.4%
2) Pete - 13.1%
3) Beto - 11.3%
4) Kamala - 9.7%
5) Warren - 8.9%

Edited April 15, 2019 by bad_teammate
added Biden-less numbers

[BradInATX 9,208]

b_t, do you have a link to the tax returns Bernie released today, as he promised he would? I can't find a link

Edited April 15, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13,508]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

b_t, do you have a link to the tax returns Bernie released today, as he promised he would? I can't find a link

Only 5 years so far, (18, 17, 16, 15, and 14), but there might be more later. Not as much as Kamala's 15 years, of course.

Not much more detail that what we get in the Senate Financial Disclosure reports.

Anyway, here are the 5 years the Sanders campaign has released so far.

[Anastasis 23,717]

blonde could get it in the caboose. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Only 5 years so far, (18, 17, 16, 15, and 14), but there might be more later. Not as much as Kamala's 15 years, of course.

Not much more detail that what we get in the Senate Financial Disclosure reports.

Anyway, here are the 5 years the Sanders campaign has released so far.

Just saw that he actually released them. Good on him. Don't see anything that should bother anyone. Now let's see the rest of the candidates follow suit with ten or more years. 

[bad_teammate 13,508]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

blonde could get it in the caboose. 

A shameful lack of caboose in that video, sir.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

27 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Just saw that he actually released them. Good on him. Don't see anything that should bother anyone. Now let's see the rest of the candidates follow suit with ten or more years. 

people who have nothing to hide will release them, likely in round numbers.  5, 10, 15.

people with a ton of shit to hide likely will never release them, even though they've been requested in specific numbers (6 years), because that's the statute of limitations on tax fraud.

i'm enjoying the juxtaposition.

[BradInATX 9,208]

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

people who have nothing to hide will release them, likely in round numbers.  5, 10, 15.

people with a ton of shit to hide likely will never release them, even though they've been requested in specific numbers (6 years), because that's the statute of limitations on tax fraud.

i'm enjoying the juxtaposition.

It'll be interesting to watch Beto. I suspect there's some stuff in there that's far from ideal. 

I have to assume Biden and Warren have kept theirs clean at least for 5 years or so, knowing that a possible run was in the cards. Same with Booker. 

[bad_teammate 13,508]

Why "or more"?

Is there even a rationale behind demanding taxes at this point or is it just an ever-ratcheting and insatiable call for blood and bone?

2024 cycle
- Where are you DNA results!?

2028 cycle
- Where are your nudes!?

[bad_teammate 13,508]

19 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

It'll be interesting to watch Beto. I suspect there's some stuff in there that's far from ideal. 

Stop suspecting things without basis.

I'm not Captain of the Beto Cheerleading Squad, but I have no reason to believe anything is happening. I hope Pete and Beto never release any tax returns and it breaks the #RESISTANCE conspiracy fever. I will defend them on it the whole way.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Beto just released 10 years of returns.

I posted a link in the Beto thread.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is there even a rationale behind demanding taxes at this point or is it just an ever-ratcheting and insatiable call for blood and bone?

dude if you can't figure out the optics by now i can no longer help you.

we have a buffoon in the white house who is likely in bed with a foreign entity - the literal worst case scenario of the original rule of "why a president must disclose his financials".  

stop making this about bernie and look at the bigger picture.

[BradInATX 9,208]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Stop suspecting things without basis.

I'm not Captain of the Beto Cheerleading Squad, but I have no reason to believe anything is happening. I hope Pete and Beto never release any tax returns and it breaks the #RESISTANCE conspiracy fever. I will defend them on it the whole way.

So you're not a fan of transparency?

[bad_teammate 13,508]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

So you're not a fan of transparency?

I'm a huge fan of government transparency. Candidates aren't government officials.

Releasing 10 years of tax returns a year before the primaries is brand new. Our nation has been going for almost 250 years now without having PRIMARY candidates exposing everything to us.

If your only reasoning is "WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?!!?!?" then there is literally no possible end to the invasive demands. There should be some rational basis for these demands on the private information of these citizens. But I'm sure I'm the only person who is against this mindless baying, so whatever.

[bad_teammate 13,508]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

stop making this about bernie and look at the bigger picture.

What? "I hope Pete and Beto never release any tax returns and it breaks the #RESISTANCE conspiracy fever. I will defend them on it the whole way."

Do you know that some people have beliefs that extend past candidate loyalties?

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm a huge fan of government transparency. Candidates aren't government officials.

Releasing 10 years of tax returns a year before the primaries is brand new. Our nation has been going for almost 250 years now without having PRIMARY candidates exposing everything to us.

If your only reasoning is "WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?!!?!?" then there is literally no possible end to the invasive demands. There should be some rational basis for these demands on the private information of these citizens. But I'm sure I'm the only person who is against this mindless baying, so whatever.

Even if you think it's pointless, there is literally zero reason to be against it. Zero. 

[bad_teammate 13,508]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Even if you think it's pointless, there is literally zero reason to be against it. Zero. 

I'm against it because it's pointless.

I'm against it because it's invasive.

I'm against it because it's something done completely in bad faith.

There are three, and I haven't even really started thinking hard about it.

[bad_teammate 13,508]

If anyone right here right now is genuinely concerned in their heart or mind that Pete Buttigieg is hiding something that his tax returns will reveal, that person is fucked up in a way that released tax returns will not help them.

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm against it because it's pointless.

I'm against it because it's invasive.

I'm against it because it's something done completely in bad faith.

There are three, and I haven't even really started thinking hard about it.

I disagree that it's pointless.

I don't care that it's invasive. You are running to be the most powerful human being on the planet. If anything we should know more about these people, not less.

Bad faith? Maybe in some cases but I don't think in general. My first reaction to Bernie's tax returns was how annoying the "Bernie releases tax returns, is in top 1% zomg" headline was that came up as my first google search result, because it's disingenuous bullcrap. As far as I'm concerned he's good there, and let's hear some policy and get into the primary. If you believe that there COULD be something in a tax return that could be disqualifying or cause damage to the candidate, which I know you do because you want to see Trump's, then you've disqualified your own argument that it's in "bad faith". 

Were some calls for Bernie's in bad faith? I'm sure they were. But is a general belief that _all_ candidates should release at least five years of a return in bad faith? Nope. 

[henrygandorf 29,225]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm against it because it's pointless.

I'm against it because it's invasive.

I'm against it because it's something done completely in bad faith.

There are three, and I haven't even really started thinking hard about it.

dude.  we (america) elected a president that may be in bed with a foreign govt that we don't really get along with.  a deep dive into his [actual] financial records may have revealed some sense of this.

it will never be pointless again, and it will always be a "thing" people should know before they cast a vote in your direction.

sorry if it offends your delicate sense of liberty, but on this one, you're wrong, and yes, you're making it all about bernie.

"papa bernie, i'm glad you released your returns but you didn't have to right?  right???"

[Enchubben 5,600]

9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Even if you think it's pointless, there is literally zero reason to be against it. Zero. 

Please upload your tax returns to surly whenever you get the chance. You have nothing to hide, right?

[BradInATX 9,208]

Just now, Enchubben said:

Please upload your tax returns to surly whenever you get the chance. You have nothing to hide, right?

You can't be this stupid.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If anyone right here right now is genuinely concerned in their heart or mind that Pete Buttigieg is hiding something that his tax returns will reveal, that person is fucked up in a way that released tax returns will not help them.

honest question - do you think trump should have to turn his over?  i really haven't seen your opinion on this and would like a yes or no.

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

honest question - do you think trump should have to turn his over?  i really haven't seen your opinion on this and would like a yes or no.

He is on record multiple times having said that he believes Trump should have to release his because it's "obvious Trump is hiding things" (which is true). 

Edited April 16, 2019 by BradInATX

[henrygandorf 29,225]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

He is on record multiple times having said that he believes Trump should have to release his because it's "obvious Trump is hiding things" (which is true). 

so....what's good for the goose?  wtf?

[bad_teammate 13,508]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

If you believe that there COULD be something in a tax return that could be disqualifying or cause damage to the candidate, which I know you do because you want to see Trump's, then you've disqualified your own argument that it's in "bad faith". 

There is rational cause, based on evidence, that leads us to believe that Donald Trump might be guilty of a crime that his tax returns would reveal. Don't be fucking obtuse.

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

sorry if it offends your delicate sense of liberty, but on this one, you're wrong, and yes, you're making it all about bernie.

Not everyone is incapable of thinking about things beyond their team sports preferences.

It's not about Bernie at all. If it was just about Bernie and I was nothing but a pro-Bernie hack then right now I'd be howling about Pete's tax returns. "WHERE ARE THEY OH MY GOD WHAT ARE YOU HIDING FROM MCKINSEY IS IT BLOOD MONEY YOU BASTARD!?"

Some of us have ideas.

Just now, henrygandorf said:

honest question - do you think trump should have to turn his over?  i really haven't seen your opinion on this and would like a yes or no.

Dodging the fucking point, of course.

Yes, Donald Trump should turn over his tax returns because we have verifiable evidence that he's committed financial crimes. Literal under-oath testimony relating to tax fraud.

Meanwhile, the presidential candidates, uh... exist?

Because Donald Trump is an obvious criminal that means our entire nation's history is to be ignored and invalidated? fuck off

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

so....what's good for the goose?  wtf?

It's b_t. It's just a weird thing he does where he loses his populist "f the man" course when it collides with Bernie. The frustrating thing is it's not even necessary. Bernie released his returns, they look fine, he's good to go, why still fight the ill-conceived war? He's like a pit bull that can't un-latch despite the target being dead.

[bad_teammate 13,508]

Just now, BradInATX said:

why still fight the ill-conceived war?

How did the United States of America exist for 250 years without seeing a decade of tax returns from every presidential primary candidate?

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

There is rational cause, based on evidence, that leads us to believe that Donald Trump might be guilty of a crime that his tax returns would reveal. Don't be fucking obtuse.

Not everyone is incapable of thinking about things beyond their team sports preferences.

It's not about Bernie at all. If it was just about Bernie and I was nothing but a pro-Bernie hack then right now I'd be howling about Pete's tax returns. "WHERE ARE THEY OH MY GOD WHAT ARE YOU HIDING FROM MCKINSEY IS IT BLOOD MONEY YOU BASTARD!?"

Some of us have ideas.

Dodging the fucking point, of course.

Yes, Donald Trump should turn over his tax returns because we have verifiable evidence that he's committed financial crimes. Literal under-oath testimony relating to tax fraud.

Meanwhile, the presidential candidates, uh... exist?

Because Donald Trump is an obvious criminal that means our entire nation's history is to be ignored and invalidated? fuck off

"Might be guilty of a crime"

"Obvious criminal"

By whose standards? I mean I 100% agree with you that Trump is a filthy POS - but everything you're saying is subjective. Where do you draw the line of "likely guilty of something" that would require them to release returns? Who gets to be the arbiter of that? You? Me? 

I'm for transparency and American voters being armed with as much possible information as they can be. You are not. I guess it's that simple.

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

How did the United States of America exist for 250 years without seeing a decade of tax returns from every presidential primary candidate?

Well, bad_teammate, an elitist duopoly took over, destroyed the middle class and turned our country into an corporate kleptocracy, as you very well know. You know, the thing Bernie is fighting against.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

There is rational cause, based on evidence, that leads us to believe that Donald Trump might be guilty of a crime that his tax returns would reveal. Don't be fucking obtuse.

Not everyone is incapable of thinking about things beyond their team sports preferences.

It's not about Bernie at all. If it was just about Bernie and I was nothing but a pro-Bernie hack then right now I'd be howling about Pete's tax returns. "WHERE ARE THEY OH MY GOD WHAT ARE YOU HIDING FROM MCKINSEY IS IT BLOOD MONEY YOU BASTARD!?"

Some of us have ideas.

Dodging the fucking point, of course.

Yes, Donald Trump should turn over his tax returns because we have verifiable evidence that he's committed financial crimes. Literal under-oath testimony relating to tax fraud.

Meanwhile, the presidential candidates, uh... exist?

Because Donald Trump is an obvious criminal that means our entire nation's history is to be ignored and invalidated? fuck off

you've made it all about bernie - this whole fucking time - we've all read it dude.  we've all agreed he had nothing to hide, and nothing to gain (and fucking everything to lose) by not disclosing them.  we all thought he would, and he did.

what point am i dodging?  we already elected donald trump.  there's no going back on it.  if we had seen his financial records, it could've been avoided.  from now on, any serious contender needs to disclose their financial records.  this isn't 1890.  people can get compromised and it's important for the public to know where your money is coming from and where it's going.

and exactly zero people are interested in forming opinions about what you think is "obvious".

do you even hear yourself anymore?  good lord.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

"Might be guilty of a crime"

"Obvious criminal"

By whose standards? I mean I 100% agree with you that Trump is a filthy POS - but everything you're saying is subjective. Where do you draw the line of "likely guilty of something" that would require them to release returns? Who gets to be the arbiter of that? You? Me? 

I'm for transparency and American voters being armed with as much possible information as they can be. You are not. I guess it's that simple.

there's not only a line formed separating degrees of possible guilt, but more importantly - timing.

i don't want to find out about someone's shady financial relationships 'after' he's in the fucking white house.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How did the United States of America exist for 250 years without seeing a decade of tax returns from every presidential primary candidate?

is this really the hill you've chosen to die on?  250 years of american history?

giggle.

Edited April 16, 2019 by henrygandorf

[bad_teammate 13,508]

10 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

"Might be guilty of a crime"

"Obvious criminal"

By whose standards?

Cohen's under-oath testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee in which he openly says that Trump purposefully misstated the value of properties and committed insurance fraud.

This isn't complicated.

8 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

 we already elected donald trump.  there's no going back on it.  if we had seen his financial records, it could've been avoided. 

You have learned absolutely nothing if you think his tax returns would have mattered to voters.

Libs have brain diseases:

Yeah, Joe Waltrip in Bumfuck County Kentucky,

"Well god damn, Lerlene, I done looked over this man's tax returns and I think he might not be fully honest! WE'RE VOTIN' HILLARY!"

Brain rot.

Quote

from now on, any serious contender needs to disclose their financial records.  this isn't 1890.  people can get compromised and it's important for the public to know where your money is coming from and where it's going.

It's me, the brain genius who thinks people were incorruptible until 2016.

We should demand tax returns when there's a verifiable reason to believe there's a problem. Hell, let's even demand them at the nominating conventions. But a year out from the primaries without any rational cause?

Edited April 16, 2019 by bad_teammate

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Cohen's under-oath testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee in which he openly says that Trump purposefully misstated the value of properties and committed insurance fraud.

This isn't complicated.

You have learned absolutely nothing if you think his tax returns would have mattered to voters.

Libs have brain diseases:

Yeah, Joe Waltrip in Bumfuck County Kentucky,

"Well god damn, Lerlene, I done looked over this man's tax returns and I think he might not be fully honest! WE'RE VOTIN' HILLARY!"

Brain rot.

It's me, the brain genius who thinks people were incorruptible until 2016.

We should demand tax returns when there's a verifiable reason to believe there's a problem. Hell, let's even demand them at the nominating conventions. But a year out from the primaries without any rational cause?

The rational cause is that they're running to be the most powerful person in the world. 

But by all means you're right about the last 250 years and how great things have been prior to this newfound push for transparency. Stay the course!!!

[bad_teammate 13,508]

Just now, BradInATX said:

The rational cause is that they're running to be the most powerful person in the world. 

Such a rationale has no logical endpoint. Enjoy your paranoid fever dreams, I guess.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's me, the brain genius who thinks people were incorruptible until 2016.

there wasn't a warning on the side of paint cans not to ingest until somebody was hungry enough to try it out.  adapt or die.

We should demand tax returns when there's a verifiable reason to believe there's a problem. Hell, let's even demand them at the nominating conventions. But a year out from the primaries without any rational cause?

so who determines whether it's "verifiable"?  somebody asked bernie in 2015-16 when he was a top 3 candidate about his returns.  he said "sure", then he didn't disclose them.  then he got asked again and again and again, and kept promising but did nothing.  yes, that became a story.  you said it wasn't, but look at the news today.  his refusal to submit them was a story, and his disclosing them today is another (much much better) story.

it's not up to the candidates what is and isn't important to voters.  there are probably people out there that wish they knew certain things about trump before they voted for him.  maybe people that just disliked hillary.  some of those people would be equally suspicious of bernie if they ran against each other, and bernie too refused to show his returns. 

why leave anything to chance?

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Such a rationale has no logical endpoint. Enjoy your paranoid fever dreams, I guess.

You realize that it's entirely commonplace for candidates for leadership jobs to be vetted financially, right? I've had clients ask for five years of financials prior to executing contracts with me, which I of course supply, and what I do isn't all that important. These people are applying for the most powerful job on the planet. The real question isn't "why is it suddenly important", but "why haven't we held applicants to POTUS to the same standard that we hold applicants to CEO jobs of companies with 8-9 figures of revenue". 

But I realize that you, being a corporatist/elitist, believe that the general population is stupid and should be protected from information about the people wanting to be the most powerful person in the world. I just don't agree. I believe voters should be armed with as much information and transparency as possible, and this is a (tiny tiny) step in the right direction - putting the power back in the people's hands. 

But you hang out in your veiled smoky room with the Rockefellers and Clintons if it makes you happy. I guess some of us just value the common man more than others.

Anyway, we've danced this dance enough. I'll leave the last word to you if you want it.

Edited April 16, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13,508]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

so who determines whether it's "verifiable"? 

That's a good question, is it in good faith and would you be interested in discussing it?

I think it's reasonable to demand tax returns from nominated candidates if there is any legal testimony or legal proceeding that indicates financial entanglements or crimes.

I think it's reasonable to demand financial disclosures from nominated candidates.

I do not think it is reasonable to demand a decade of tax returns from any potential candidate a year out from primaries without a claim based on a good-faith, evidence-based reason to suspect irregularity or entanglement. There should be a process and established standard to prevent rampant, psychotic paranoia from leading people to eat their own party allies alive in a delusional fever dream.

Quote

why leave anything to chance?

It's impossible not to leave things to chance. It is better to have a rational, logical framework to address potential concerns.

[henrygandorf 29,225]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

That's a good question, is it in good faith and would you be interested in discussing it?

I think it's reasonable to demand tax returns from nominated candidates if there is any legal testimony or legal proceeding that indicates financial entanglements or crimes.

I think it's reasonable to demand financial disclosures from nominated candidates.

I do not think it is reasonable to demand a decade of tax returns from any potential candidate a year out from primaries without a claim based on a good-faith, evidence-based reason to suspect irregularity or entanglement. There should be a process and established standard to prevent rampant, psychotic paranoia from leading people to eat their own party allies alive in a delusional fever dream.

It's impossible not to leave things to chance. It is better to have a rational, logical framework to address potential concerns.

nobody demanded a decade, homey.  people are just interested in transparency because of who's in the white house.

like it or not, trump changed everything regarding financial records and public office.  forever.