I came up with Biden, but at the same time, the questions are just far too obvious and the questionnaire too short. If you answer yes about the question regardign presidents in the 70's, then that throws out Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg and Biden right off the bat. I was hoping for something a little deeper, based on ideas, not identity.
I came up with Biden, but at the same time, the questions are just far too obvious and the questionnaire too short. If you answer yes about the question regardign presidents in the 70's, then that throws out Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg and Biden right off the bat. I was hoping for something a little deeper, based on ideas, not identity.
I answered yes to that question and still managed to get Biden
I came up with Biden, but at the same time, the questions are just far too obvious and the questionnaire too short. If you answer yes about the question regardign presidents in the 70's, then that throws out Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg and Biden right off the bat. I was hoping for something a little deeper, based on ideas, not identity.
I answered yes to that question and still managed to get Biden
You said yes on 70 is too old? I wonder what you would have to choose to get Pete then.
I came up with Biden, but at the same time, the questions are just far too obvious and the questionnaire too short. If you answer yes about the question regardign presidents in the 70's, then that throws out Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg and Biden right off the bat. I was hoping for something a little deeper, based on ideas, not identity.
I answered yes to that question and still managed to get Biden
You said yes on 70 is too old? I wonder what you would have to choose to get Pete then.
I didn't scroll to see who was next closest. I would've guessed Pete or Yang as my closest but I think the court packing question throws both of them.
I got Tom Steyer, but he's not high on my list of favorite candidates.
Maybe he should be.
Here's where bias comes in: I don't trust anyone with a net worth of $1.6 billion.
Well you are in a pickle. The lowest net worth candidate is Pete, but we also learned last week that you're a homophobe... so you'll have to decide who you hate more.
I always found this Sanders quote hilarious: “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times,
Evidently there are acceptable ways to be rich and unacceptable, singularly determined by Bernie?
I always found this Sanders quote hilarious: “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times,
Evidently there are acceptable ways to be rich and unacceptable, singularly determined by Bernie?
You are writing this from a very antagonistic point of view.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I always found this Sanders quote hilarious: “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times,
Evidently there are acceptable ways to be rich and unacceptable, singularly determined by Bernie?
You are writing this from a very antagonistic point of view.
Not at all. It's a fair criticism. That's the whole problem I have with him. He hates millionaires... when it's convenient.
I always found this Sanders quote hilarious: “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times,
Evidently there are acceptable ways to be rich and unacceptable, singularly determined by Bernie?
Gah! I don't like anyone setting parameters for others regarding how much wealth is "allowed" or, as you say, acceptable.
And there's no shame in having a nice bank account, as long as backs weren't stabbed (or other similar deeds undertaken) along the way.
I always found this Sanders quote hilarious: “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times,
Evidently there are acceptable ways to be rich and unacceptable, singularly determined by Bernie?
You are writing this from a very antagonistic point of view.
Not at all. It's a fair criticism. That's the whole problem I have with him. He hates millionaires... when it's convenient.
he thinks people in society should pay their fair share to make society humane. he has never said he should skip out on paying his fair share if being a milliinaire.
so: come on man. you are better than this
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I always found this Sanders quote hilarious: “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times,
Evidently there are acceptable ways to be rich and unacceptable, singularly determined by Bernie?
Gah! I don't like anyone setting parameters for others regarding how much wealth is "allowed" or, as you say, acceptable.
And there's no shame in having a nice bank account, as long as backs weren't stabbed (or other similar deeds undertaken) along the way.
So to you there is no level of wealth that is unacceptable?
I always found this Sanders quote hilarious: “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times,
Evidently there are acceptable ways to be rich and unacceptable, singularly determined by Bernie?
Gah! I don't like anyone setting parameters for others regarding how much wealth is "allowed" or, as you say, acceptable.
And there's no shame in having a nice bank account, as long as backs weren't stabbed (or other similar deeds undertaken) along the way.
So to you there is no level of wealth that is unacceptable?
If it's earned honestly, and taxes and the like are paid (goddamn loopholes), then no.
I always found this Sanders quote hilarious: “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times,
Evidently there are acceptable ways to be rich and unacceptable, singularly determined by Bernie?
Gah! I don't like anyone setting parameters for others regarding how much wealth is "allowed" or, as you say, acceptable.
And there's no shame in having a nice bank account, as long as backs weren't stabbed (or other similar deeds undertaken) along the way.
So to you there is no level of wealth that is unacceptable?
If it's earned honestly, and taxes and the like are paid (goddamn loopholes), then no.
Score one for Bloomberg. This particular dick-measure could get under Trump’s skin.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I always found this Sanders quote hilarious: “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” he recently told the New York Times,
Evidently there are acceptable ways to be rich and unacceptable, singularly determined by Bernie?
Gah! I don't like anyone setting parameters for others regarding how much wealth is "allowed" or, as you say, acceptable.
And there's no shame in having a nice bank account, as long as backs weren't stabbed (or other similar deeds undertaken) along the way.
So to you there is no level of wealth that is unacceptable?
no. as long as people pay taxes from the principle of ”help by ability, get help by need” is fullfiled”
I dont have anything against people paying a progressive tax based on income.
but I also do not have a problem with people being ”succeseul”
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
the last question about age was kind of dumb. but obviously just a simple/shallow survey
@brianlux
And Sanders is the Supernova of the primary
Here's where bias comes in: I don't trust anyone with a net worth of $1.6 billion.
but pete is just another beto.
”oh the news are talking about me - I must be destined to be president”
pete is the one that is gonna drop out way to late. as in you feel second hand enberrasement about him not dropping out earlier
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/08/14/heres-the-net-worth-of-every-2020-presidential-candidate/#1463625e37c5
Evidently there are acceptable ways to be rich and unacceptable, singularly determined by Bernie?
And there's no shame in having a nice bank account, as long as backs weren't stabbed (or other similar deeds undertaken) along the way.
so: come on man. you are better than this
And, unacceptable to whom?
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I dont have anything against people paying a progressive tax based on income.
but I also do not have a problem with people being ”succeseul”