Support NeoGAF

[TestOfTide]

I would hope so. Hopefully poliGAF becomes more tolerable to read through with the primary over, because in the past it's been a really good resource for news and policy discussion, especially during slower, non-election years.

I think I can tolerate the occasional Hilary fan club/YAAAS QUEEN posts as long as the cheap shots at Bernie voters don't carry over into the general

The petty shots are understandably not helpful, but a lot of it came about because of Bernie-or-Bust people relying on the same "Mainstream Media" complaints that conservatives have been ridiculed about for years.

 

[Arkeband]

OMFG can we stop with this media conspiracy bullshit?

To ignore state that many media outlets were really trying their best to fuck Bernie is an understatement. Remember this?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2...n-16-negative-stories-bernie-sanders-16-hours

And Vox's early hit pieces on his single payer healthcare costs were widely acknowledged to be incredibly misleading and inaccurate. Yet I'm sure they're still being passed around.

While there was no conspiracy, to say that the media has somehow treated him as they'd treat any other challenger is just silly. If you can then turn around and acknowledge their disgusting fascination with the 24/7 Trump Show we've been subjected to for over a year, you're just being a hypocrite. Fuck the news media.

And once again to bring this up, before people actually believe that the Clinton camp was hands-off in terms of attacking Bernie, they were caught trying to feed "scoops" to the Burlington Free Press, who then published an article exposing them.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...per-pac-offers-off-record-news-tips/79131372/

So the difference here is that instead of the hit pieces coming from the campaign itself, they were done in a much sneakier way by manipulating the news media, down to asking them to keep their name out of it.

 

[ANDS]

There was this guy named Richard Nixon, maybe you have heard of him?

Yes. Nixon's troubles were all about his "tax records."

And I'm not going to argue what "kids gloves" means. It's pointless. I already provided a link to the PolitiFact debunking the myth that Sanders hasn't been hit.

 

[B-Dubs]

To ignore that many media outlets were really trying their best to fuck Bernie is an understatement. Remember this?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2...n-16-negative-stories-bernie-sanders-16-hours

And Vox's early hit pieces on his single payer healthcare costs were widely acknowledged to be incredibly misleading and inaccurate. Yet I'm sure they're still being passed around.

While there was no conspiracy, to say that the media has somehow treated him as they'd treat any other challenger is just silly. If you can then turn around and acknowledge their disgusting fascination with the 24/7 Trump Show we've been subjected to for over a year, you're just being a hypocrite. Fuck the news media.

That's what happens when you fuck up, you get bad stories written about you! He got treated with the seriousness a real presidential candidate gets for like two weeks and folded like a cheap napkin. That's on him. Stop blaming everyone else for his screw-ups and missteps.

 

[pigeon]

It's not a standard. It's just something they do so they can appear transparent. When was the last time any election turned on a fucking presidents tax record. When was the last time anyone voted for a candidate because of their filing?

Since I see you're interested in learning the English language, you might want to look up the word "standard."

And they aren't just speeches. If they were they would be public record by now, and Clinton wouldn't have been pegging their release to the Republican candidates doing the same. Her campaign is clearly unwilling to release the transcripts because they contain what pretty much everyone knows they contain: praise for Wall Street that is in complete opposition to this "pay their fair share" nonsense on the trail. You can strawman "OMG GS conspiracy!" all you want to dismiss the issue.

I'd also recommend taking a look at the word "fantasy."

 

[Zornack]

The petty shots are understandably not helpful, but a lot of it came about because of Bernie-or-Bust people relying on the same "Mainstream Media" complaints that conservatives have been ridiculed about for years.

Yeah, definitely, but if you're a sane Bernie supporter then you could definitely get turned off by PoliGAF ragging on the crazy ones.

 

[Meowster]

Regarding people worrying about Bernie's base and how they'll affect the general election: I think of them like this - there is a Democrat base that is just fine with Hillary but they want this country to grow more left word so they voted for Hillary - I imagine this is most of his voters that aren't millennials and/or Independents. They'll do what the party decides as they know how this works. And then there is the group of millennials that are probably Democrats but are so new to this that they haven't made up their minds. They are upset that Bernie lost but they'll be willing to vote for Hillary to stop Trump if the right concessions are in play. Great. And then there is section that includes millennials and Independents that normally do not vote that honestly believe that Bernie is the great hero we need and if he doesn't get it, no one should get it. The first two can be reasoned with, the last cannot. I'm sure she'll do what is necessary to win over the second group I mentioned. I think the third is a lost cause.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

To ignore that many media outlets were really trying their best to fuck Bernie is an understatement. Remember this?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2...n-16-negative-stories-bernie-sanders-16-hours

And Vox's early hit pieces on his single payer healthcare costs were widely acknowledged to be incredibly misleading and inaccurate. Yet I'm sure they're still being passed around.

While there was no conspiracy, to say that the media has somehow treated him as they'd treat any other challenger is just silly. If you can then turn around and acknowledge their disgusting fascination with the 24/7 Trump Show we've been subjected to for over a year, you're just being a hypocrite. Fuck the news media.

You lost me at "hit piece."

 

[ANDS]

Since I see you're interested in learning the English language, you might want to look up the word "standard."

I'd also recommend taking a look at the word "fantasy."

TLDR: "I have nothing to say so I'll resort to personal insults." Yea, that ALWAYS works out well on this forum.

 

[kitschykitty]

Yes. Nixon's troubles were all about his "tax records."

And I'm not going to argue what "kids gloves" means. It's pointless. I already provided a link to the PolitiFact debunking the myth that Sanders hasn't been hit.

Here's what kids gloves means

Sander's wasn't ignored you're right but even the politifact article you linked argues that Hillary got it much worse then he did.

 

[Arkeband]

You lost me at "hit piece."

When the data is bogus, it's a hit piece.

And 16 negative articles in 16 hours from one outlet is excessive no matter how you spin it.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Your original point was "how long will Bernie supporters stew in the "the media rigged the election" narrative. I think it's pretty clear how they rigged the election by only focusing on Trump. I simply think they did it for different reasons:

First there was no reason to cover Dem Race once they had all decided that Hillary was the nominee after Biden made it clear he is not stepping in. This only changed in February as Bernie started catching up in the polls in NH/Iowa after spending actual time/money to get that airtime that the media decided not to provide him.
The second factor was ratings, the "news" was more interested in covering Trump and GOP circus for the ratings rather than actual policies being brought up by the democrats

Considering where Trump is do you think the media didn't rig the elections in his favor by providing him with 2 billion worth of free air time?

When people talk about the rigged media I always think of Apple fans in the 90's or Blackberry and Palm fans in the aughts. When things don't go your way, there is an instinct to blame the media. We weren't wrong, our message is good. The only reason we aren't winning is because people don't know about how awesome we are. It's the biased media's fault.

It's a really common anti-pattern that people fall into when things don't go their way, but when we look at similar events with the benefit of hindsight, it's almost never the case.

Sanders lost because he was only able to cultivate a very narrow following to match his very narrow message. The second that he refused to listen to and incorporate the needs and wishes of outside groups, he forfeited any ability to win a national election. He did not diversify his base and it didn't seem like it was a even something he considered a priority.

 

[Steel]

Your original point was "how long will Bernie supporters stew in the "the media rigged the election" narrative. I think it's pretty clear how they rigged the election by only focusing on Trump. I simply think they did it for different reasons:

First there was no reason to cover Dem Race once they had all decided that Hillary was the nominee after Biden made it clear he is not stepping in. This only changed in February as Bernie started catching up in the polls in NH/Iowa after spending actual time/money to get that airtime that the media decided not to provide him.
The second factor was ratings, the "news" was more interested in covering Trump and GOP circus for the ratings rather than actual policies being brought up by the democrats

There was a line of posts leading up to that. Basically the conversation was that the media was pro establishment and actively trying to deny Sanders the nomination, and the response to that was that it was just the media playing to ratings. Unless you're implying that the media conspired to give Trump the nomination, I don't see how it was "rigged" so much as things just turned out that way because of the nature of the media. The media wanted to get ratings, period, bottomline and all the candidates operated in this environment.

 

[ANDS]

Here's what kids gloves means

Sander's wasn't ignored you're right but even the politifact article you linked argues that Hillary got it much worse then he did.

That isn't a workable definition. It's some vague throwaway phrase when what people REALLY mean is your last line: "He wasn't hit as hard as Clinton."

To that I say, "Duh."

 

[pigeon]

TLDR: "I have nothing to say so I'll resort to personal insults." Yea, that ALWAYS works out well on this forum.

There isn't anything to say in response to your post!

If there is a long precedent of people who are running for President releasing their tax returns, that is a standard. That is pretty much what the word means.

The rest of your post is you claiming based on zero evidence that obviously her speeches reveal her secret sympathy for Wall Street and accusing the people who don't believe that of constructing straw men. Like I said, this is a fantasy. I am not sure what there is to say about it except you do you, man.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Yes. Nixon's troubles were all about his "tax records."

And I'm not going to argue what "kids gloves" means. It's pointless. I already provided a link to the PolitiFact debunking the myth that Sanders hasn't been hit.

Nixon's troubles were about Tax records! How old are you? You know Nixon's famous "I am not a crook!" line? HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS TAXES.


I didn't say that Sanders hadn't been hit. Everybody gets hit. National politics is a full contact sport. I said that Sanders hasn't been hit as much as he could have been. He has not been stripped bare in public the way that most national politicians are.

TLDR: "I have nothing to say so I'll resort to personal insults." Yea, that ALWAYS works out well on this forum.

TLDR works even better...

 

[KingK]

She needs them but I also refuse to believe that the majority of Bernie's supporters are Bernie or Bust. I think the stats point to this but I can't say for sure. The Bernie or Bust group is probably never going to waver and will likely be the HillaryIs44 of this election.

Agreed, the stats I remember seeing show that there's more Bernie supporters who will support Clinton than Clinton supporters who would back Obama at this same point of the race in 08. It's not close to as bad now as it was then, which is why I've found the concern trolling about him ruining the party or actively and intentionally helping Trump to be ridiculous.

Haha, yea, that was stupid of me, but I don't actually think of Bernie as being evil. There are some Bernie supporters who think Hillary will bring about the start of the Fallout series of video games because she's just ready to start WWIII the minute she takes office.

That sort of cartoon villain. Not examining Bernie in the context of a tragic fictional character, who just happens to literally be a cartoon villain.

I was just poking fun and it was too good an opportunity to pass up haha. I don't actually remember you using much vitriol and hyperbole this primary compared to some other users.

As to the people you're taking about, they also tend to be the type who are 9/11 truthers or buy into other conspiracies. They typically don't vote or voted for people like Ron Paul and have no cohesive ideological goals. I don't like that this group attached itself to Bernie's platform this election, but it's important to recognize that, despite being highly active online, it's a very niche group that doesn't even come close to accounting for the 40%+ of the democratic primary votes that Bernie got. I don't typically engage in political discourse with them unless it's face to face.

 

[ANDS]

There isn't anything to say in response to your post!

If there is a long precedent of people who are running for President releasing their tax returns, that is a standard. That is pretty much what the word means.

The rest of your post is you claiming based on zero evidence that obviously her speeches reveal her secret sympathy for Wall Street and accusing the people who don't believe that of constructing straw men. Like I said, this is a fantasy. I am not sure what there is to say about it except you do you, man.

It is specifically a straw man to suggest that the people who want her to release her transcripts are looking for some Wall Street conspiracy. You are hand waving off the existence of a conspiracy as the reason to not release the transcripts. That is THE definition of a straw man.

 

[Kimawolf]

If the internet was around in 1968 this,is probably what things looked like. We even have many of the same players back in spirit.

 

[BlastProcessing]

It is specifically a straw man to suggest that the people who want her to release her transcripts are looking for some Wall Street conspiracy. You are hand waving off the existence of a conspiracy as the reason to not release the transcripts. That is THE definition of a straw man.

So why do you want them released?

 

[pigeon]

It is specifically a straw man to suggest that the people who want her to release her transcripts are looking for some Wall Street conspiracy. You are hand waving off the existence of a conspiracy as the reason to not release the transcripts. That is THE definition of a straw man.

I think those posts are better understood as mockery. Calling them straw men implies that people are taking this speech discussion seriously. I can assure you that they are treating it with the seriousness it deserves.

 

[ANDS]

Nixon's troubles were about Tax records! How old are you? You know Nixon's famous "I am not a crook!" line? HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS TAXES.

Nixon wasn't threatened with impeachment over his taxes. Nixon didn't have an exodus of executive staff because of his taxes. Nixon didn't have a run in with the Supreme Court over his taxes. Nixon didn't resign and receive a pardon because of his. . .taxes.

How old are you?

I didn't say that Sanders hadn't been hit. Everybody gets hit. National politics is a full contact sport. I said that Sanders hasn't been hit as much as he could have been. He has not been stripped bare in public the way that most national politicians are.

Let me know when we're finished moving the goal posts.

So why do you want them released?

Because it EXACTLY speaks to the trustworthiness issue.

 

[kitschykitty]

That isn't a workable definition. It's some vague throwaway phrase when what people REALLY mean is your last line: "He wasn't hit as hard as Clinton."

To that I say, "Duh."

So he was hit with kids gloves then, glad we agree.

 

[Blader]

Anymore idiotic than the myth that Sanders has been coddled. Sure.



It's not a standard. It's just something they do so they can appear transparent. When was the last time any election turned on a fucking presidents tax record. When was the last time anyone voted for a candidate because of their filing?

And they aren't just speeches. If they were they would be public record by now, and Clinton wouldn't have been pegging their release to the Republican candidates doing the same. Her campaign is clearly unwilling to release the transcripts because they contain what pretty much everyone knows they contain: praise for Wall Street that is in complete opposition to this "pay their fair share" nonsense on the trail. You can strawman "OMG GS conspiracy!" all you want to dismiss the issue.

They are just speeches. People who've actually attended these events have said they were basic rah-rah fluff engagements about empowering women in business and so forth. You're right, she probably did not turn up at Goldman and give a two-hour talk about how everyone in the room was personally responsible for killing off your retirement savings. That is not the same as advocating for big banks to get bigger, particularly when you consider that Obama fought for Wall Street regulation despite raising more money from Wall Street than any candidate before him.

The reason they don't release those transcripts is because they contain phrases like "my banking friends" and other nice platitudes that play well to her immediate audience and can be easily taken out of context into "Hillary is a champion of big banks and hates the working man" lines of attack -- not entirely dissimilar from what you're doing now.

 

[hawk2025]

lol, of course the speeches have praise for Wall Street.

Believe it or not, Wall Street is a massively important part of the economy.

Deal. With. It.

 

[Brinbe]

LOL, that's exactly what we're talking about. What trustworthiness issue? That she's too friendly with big banks because she pocketed their money? That's your insinuation, right?

Anyway, my point still stands from the beginning that Bernie wasn't really attacked roughly by Clinton (obviously, because they're on the same team) or the GOP (because he wasn't the front runner). So of course he'd run better in general polling this far out. He's barely been vetted at all. He'd probably still beat Trump, but who knows how things would hold out with further scrutiny placed upon his record and past. From the little we've seen, there's a lot that could be attacked.

 

[Already Torn]

LOL, that's exactly what we're talking about. What trustworthiness issue? That she's too friendly with big banks because she pocketed their money? That's your insinuation, right?

Anyway, my point still stands from the beginning that Bernie wasn't really attacked roughly by Clinton (obviously, because they're on the same team) or the GOP (because he wasn't the front runner). So of course he'd run better in polling this far out. That wouldn't hold out with further scrutiny placed upon his record and past.

Not just because he wasn't the front runner, but because he'd be super easy to beat in a GE at this point. There's a reason Trump's basically his biggest advocate on Twitter right now.

 

[DietRob]

I don't think anyone would even need to run a negative ad campaign against Sanders. All that would need to be done is show the tax increases on everyday Americans that he would need to implement. Once the general public see's that they would be paying thousands more a year for a Sanders presidency he would trail Trump by double digits.

 

[ANDS]

So he was hit with kids gloves then, glad we agree.

Does that actually ever work?

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

I don't think anyone would even need to run a negative ad campaign against Sanders. All that would need to be done is show the tax increases on everyday Americans that he would need to implement. Once the general public see's that they would be paying thousands more a year for a Sanders presidency he would trail Trump by double digits.

Any support I had for Sanders was definitely destroyed by that tax plan so I agree with you on that one.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

LOL, that's exactly what we're talking about. What trustworthiness issue? That she's too friendly with big banks because she pocketed their money? That's your insinuation, right?

.

I think the fact that Hillary at least commands some respect in the Wall Street Circle lends her some credibility when he tries to propose new rules and changes to our regulatory tools.

It's not hard to lobby against any changes Bernie Sanders might make.
And you'll hear it all over the news by pundits and people in finance.

"He doesn't understand banking"
"He's a socialist and hates capitalism"

At least Hillary Clinton has a better understanding and is not at ideological war with Wall Street. She has cooperated with them to help ease legitimate regulatory burdens and she has worked to help regulate them, too.

I don't think anyone would even need to run a negative ad campaign against Sanders. All that would need to be done is show the tax increases on everyday Americans that he would need to implement. Once the general public see's that they would be paying thousands more a year for a Sanders presidency he would trail Trump by double digits.

That Vox tax calculator was damning.
People want more services but many people seem to be unwilling to pay for them.

 

[Kite]

lol, of course the speeches have praise for Wall Street.

Believe it or not, Wall Street is a massively important part of the economy.

Deal. With. It.

lol here is a speech Clinton gave at Goldman Sachs in 2014, have fun finding dirt in "Proving the Case for Women Entrepreneurs."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lKlJ3Ed4fQ

 

[Maxim726X]

It is specifically a straw man to suggest that the people who want her to release her transcripts are looking for some Wall Street conspiracy. You are hand waving off the existence of a conspiracy as the reason to not release the transcripts. That is THE definition of a straw man.

Okay, guess you missed it the first time.

Someone has posted a speech. Watch it, then tell us about the conspiracy.

Maybe you'll miss this again.

 

[norm9]

What concessions do you all think Sanders is holding out for?

And what does steering Hillary further left mean? She's pretty left already.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

They are just speeches. People who've actually attended these events have said they were basic rah-rah fluff engagements about empowering women in business and so forth. You're right, she probably did not turn up at Goldman and give a two-hour talk about how everyone in the room was personally responsible for killing off your retirement savings. That is not the same as advocating for big banks to get bigger, particularly when you consider that Obama fought for Wall Street regulation despite raising more money from Wall Street than any candidate before him.

The reason they don't release those transcripts is because they contain phrases like "my banking friends" and other nice platitudes that play well to her immediate audience and can be easily taken out of context into "Hillary is a champion of big banks and hates the working man" lines of attack -- not entirely dissimilar from what you're doing now.

This. It's pretty obviously this.
She's invited to speak in front of an institution full of intelligent people who many will go on to do big things after Goldman Sachs. It's going to be cordial in tone and she isn't going to turn on the "I fight for the little guy on main street" speech in front of them.

Okay, guess you missed it the first time.

Someone has posted a speech. Watch it, then tell us about the conspiracy.

Maybe you'll miss this again.

To be fair, the Clinton Foundation Speech is probably going to be a bit different than one of those other speeches.

 

[PdotMichael]

What concessions do you all think Sanders is holding out for?

And what does steering Hillary further left mean? She's pretty left already.

pretty left compared to Mussolini.

 

[Mael]

I love the argument that Sanders was treated with anything but kid's glove.
The guy's record according to the media is practically spotless when was dealing with VA when that had a big scandal, his bizarre support of the arm industry, his hilarious foreign policy statements...
Sanders could have been killed in progressive eyes in 10 min flat (good luck defending Sierra Bianca btw) with the shit he pulled during his career but no one was interesting in attacking the guy anyway.
But sure an article delving deeper into his primary policy concern is a hit piece that's the symbol of the media trying to tear down the guy.
John Kerry is eating his hat right now thinking about how he would have preferred to be treated that way.

 

[kitschykitty]

Does that actually ever work?

You acknowledged he wasn't hit as hard as Clinton (or as you say "duh")

The politifact article also supports that:

Clinton has a point that compared with her, Sanders hasn’t really felt the burn of negative ad blitzes from Republican groups.

The Cambridge University definition of Kids gloves you call unworkable for some reason says:

to deal with someone very gently or carefully

and to take it all the way back to you disagreeing he was coddled

Coddled definition:

to treat with extreme or excessive care or kindness

which the Politifact article clearly states:

In one case, a "faux attack" from a conservative super PAC appears to actually bolster Sanders, illustrating another line of argument: Republicans may prefer to run against the more radical Sanders in a general election.

I'd call the opposing party helping him out excessive kindness.

So yeah I'd say it worked just fine.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Sanders was actually bolstered by Republicans and Trump consistently uses his line of attacks against Clinton. The guy had the easiest ride in the media and by what are supposed to be his political opponents and he and his supporters still whined constantly.

Any time you wonder if he was being treated differently, ask yourself if Hillary Clinton saying "white people don't know what it's like to be poor" would be talked about in the media and by Republicans every day until November.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Nixon wasn't threatened with impeachment over his taxes. Nixon didn't have an exodus of executive staff because of his taxes. Nixon didn't have a run in with the Supreme Court over his taxes. Nixon didn't resign and receive a pardon because of his. . .taxes.

How old are you?




Let me know when we're finished moving the goal posts.



Because it EXACTLY speaks to the trustworthiness issue.

The IRS audited a sitting President. It was a big deal. Releasing tax returns has been president since.

I am old enough to have seen people exactly like Sanders come and go dozens of times.

Why do the transcripts speak to trustworthiness? What do you think they would reveal? Do you see how circular you logic is here? Why wouldn't Sanders' position on his tax returns speak to his trustworthiness?

 

[kirblar]

I've learned that younger dems don't like bill so much. Could have worked.

They can't contextualize anything. Like the crime bill. Doing "nothing" at the time was not an option. It ended up being the wrong thing to do, but that's 20/20 hindsight- no one knew at the time that this was going to naturally clear up on its own.

Since when has socialism/leftist politics not appealed to people of color? Hillary put more of a focus on social issues while campaigning and already had a long and generally positive reputation in many of those communities, but there's nothing about Sanders platform that excludes or ignores non-whites. Although I'm sure some of his fans online didn't help.

Since it tries to frame everything through the lens of economic privilege? Revolution is generally a luxury of the upper-middle class and above.

 

[Elandyll]

I can only recount my own experience with Bernie and how he was treated by the medias, but I listen daily to MSNBC, CNN and Progress XM while on the road to and from Work (2h a day basically).

Progress has basically been all Bernie all the time, with the occasional Hillary based interview (or dumping on Trump).

Msnbc and Cnn have been interchangeable mostly (except for the weird Morning Joe, way more Conservative than one would expect): Airtime about 60% Trump/ Proxy or about Trump, 30% Bernie based (asking if/ when he is going to drop a LOT) and 10% Hilary based (up to 40% and dropping Bernie during the week of the Report).
Most of the time the Bernie/ Hilary proxies were being asked about shit Trump did/ said during that same week.

My conclusion: Trump is the sideshow providing audience #, Bernie distant second as a "curiosity", Hilary dead last in coverage because boring (aside from report week).
All in all the media have seemed more than fair to Bernie (Huffpo has been a huge fan), giving him and his proxies ample air time, even if too much has been to ask him when he would drop because math (which probably pissed him off regularly).

 

[Blader]

Msnbc and Cnn have been interchangeable mostly (except for the weird Morning Joe, way more Conservative than one would expect):

Joe Scarborough is a registered Republican, so, not that unexpected.

 

[A Human Becoming]

I thought they did a study that shows that's not really the case?

Which part? Most Bernie supporters will not accept this story is true. Even when I told my father about it he called Politico assholes.

What I'm really saying is Hillary supporters shouldn't use this as ammo. Bernie was not a good candidate and that should not be held against people who supported him. Constantly bashing Bernie isn't going to do Hillary any favors.

 

[Slayven]

If Hillary had told a reporter "Sorry I don't know about that, I am trying to run for president of the united states", that shit would be Bill O Rely's ringtone and aired every 15 minutes.

 

[border]

The Mainstream Media never even roasted Hilary for her flagrant hot sauce pandering!

 

[ANDS]

Okay, guess you missed it the first time.

Someone has posted a speech. Watch it, then tell us about the conspiracy.

Maybe you'll miss this again.

I don't think you quite know what you are responding to.

STUFF

Again, let me know when the goal post has finished being moved.

The IRS audited a sitting President. It was a big deal. Releasing tax returns has been president since.

That wasn't the point. At all. The question was about the value of a candidate releasing their tax records. You snarked and brought up Nixon which is curious because: (a) he released his taxes after he was elected, and (b) your quoted line has nothing to do with his taxes (as I've said MANY times, and which you've ignored just as often).

Why do the transcripts speak to trustworthiness? What do you think they would reveal? Do you see how circular you logic is here?

At this point I think you're just throwing around words. "Circular logic." How? Maybe if I had said "Clinton won't release her complete transcripts because she is untrustworthy; why is she untrusthworthy? Why because she wont release her transcripts of course!"

No one is saying that here. If you have a better framing of this by all means. . .

And Sanders doesn't have the baggage that Clinton has.

 

[CharminUltra]

The Mainstream Media never even roasted Hilary for her flagrant hot sauce pandering!

The hot sauce conspiracy.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I don't think you quite know what you are responding to.



Again, let me know when the goal post has finished being moved.



That wasn't the point. At all. The question was about the value of a candidate releasing their tax records. You snarked and brought up Nixon which is curious because: (a) he released his taxes after he was elected, and (b) your quoted line has nothing to do with his taxes (as I've said MANY times, and which you've ignored just as often).



At this point I think you're just throwing around words. "Circular logic." How? Maybe if I had said "Clinton won't release her complete transcripts because she is untrustworthy; why is she untrusthworthy? Why because she wont release her transcripts of course!"

No one is saying that here. If you have a better framing of this by all means. . .

And Sanders doesn't have the baggage that Clinton has.

The precedent of all candidates for President releasing their taxes started with Ford. It was a direct and public response to Nixon. Nixon's taxes were frontpage news for months. This is simple and unargued history.

If you can't say what you think are in those transcripts, then yes, you are engaging in circular logic. Your position is that it's bad that Clinton hasn't released her transcripts because she hasn't released her transcripts.

It's either that, or do what Sanders has done, directly accuse her of corruption. He has always framed the Transcript issue as proof that she is bought and payed for by Wall St. I don't know why you are walking away from that, honestly.

Sanders doesn't have the baggage Clinton has because he has spent his career on the sidelines. This is evident in the huge gulf in support that they have. Clinton has spent her career building relationships with people. She forged a coalition of support that is broad and diverse. She has stood up for things, she has compromised on things, she has been a politician.

 

[Irnbru]

And Sanders doesn't have the baggage that Clinton has.

Oh gosh someone please bring up the Drek post from a while back. I mean, the repubs have been itching to pull the trigger on Sanders if he was the Nominee. Everything from the honeymoon in the USSR to bread lines, to supporting to socialist regimes in South American. They'd paint the walls around sanders so red the in mother Russia jokes would write themselves.. And that's just some of the skeletons in his closet. You'd also have military pork for his state and non answers on the news fronts. Hell just look at gaf for a microism to a reaction on how much he'd raise taxes, that alone would tank him so hard he'd make Dukakis looks like beacon of success.