User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » 2020 Democrat Primaries Page 1 ... 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38, Prev Next  
UJustWait84
All American
24797 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"who's team warren"


I am. I have little faith in voters to pick her since she's the best candidate, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

8/28/2019 4:33:44 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
28019 Posts
user info
edit post

Bernies position on the filibuster is a primary deal breaker. Need someone that has a realistic plan/vision to actually get legislation through. A president being consistent on that will help greatly when pushing on senate leaders if Dems ever get to 51.

8/28/2019 4:40:57 PM

daaave
Starting Lineup
88 Posts
user info
edit post

^
I have some great news for you then:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/11/18306132/bernie-sanders-filibuster-budget-reconciliation-medicare-60-votes

Quote :
"On Wednesday, Sanders squared the circle. He’s not going to change the rules so much as command his vice president, who will be the presiding officer of the Senate, to ignore them. In a statement, Sanders said:

"I would remind everyone that the budget reconciliation process, with 51 votes, has been used time and time again to pass major pieces of legislation and that under our Constitution and the rules of the Senate, it is the vice president who determines what is and is not permissible under budget reconciliation. I can tell you that a vice president in a Bernie Sanders administration will determine that Medicare for All can pass through the Senate under reconciliation and is not in violation of the rules.""


Quote :
"The budget reconciliation process was created in 1974 to speed Congress’s efforts to match its budget goals with its actual spending. Importantly, part of that expedited process is protection from the filibuster. Soon enough, senators realized that budget reconciliation could potentially be used to protect anything from the filibuster, so the Senate passed a set of constraints, known as the Byrd Rule, to stop that from happening.

For Sanders’s purposes, the Byrd Rules sets two important limits on reconciliation, knocking out provisions that “don’t change the overall level of spending or revenue, or where such a change is merely ‘incidental,’” and that “increase deficits outside the 10-year budget window.”

In practice, one or both of these limits would rule out Medicare-for-all, which requires a vast architecture of regulatory changes that are incidental to spending or revenue and, depending on how Democrats write it, may increase deficits.

But here’s the thing: The way the budget reconciliation rules are enforced is that senators raise points of order against bills, the Senate parliamentarian makes a judgment on whether the point of order is correct, they give that judgment to the presiding officer of the Senate (in this case, the vice president), and the presiding officer makes the actual ruling.

By custom, the presiding officer follows the advice of the parliamentarian — but there’s nothing forcing him or her to do so.

What Sanders is saying is that he will command his vice president to ignore the parliamentarian’s advice and simply rule that anything he wants to do is permissible under reconciliation. This strategy has been floated before — Ted Cruz and Rand Paul proposed that Republicans use it during the debate over Obamacare repeal — but never actually used, because it is, if anything, more consequential than simply destroying the filibuster, as it could be applied to all sorts of other Senate procedures as well. "

8/28/2019 4:54:53 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
28019 Posts
user info
edit post

I was aware of that, seems pretty wonky and much more likely to be challenged, but who knows.

8/28/2019 5:06:00 PM

StTexan
Veteran
105 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"who's team warren?"


Depends on the choices. Out of Biden, Sanders, and her...definitely her.

8/28/2019 5:16:34 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
28019 Posts
user info
edit post

Depends on the choices? Why would you think those are the only 3 choices?

8/28/2019 5:24:30 PM

daaave
Starting Lineup
88 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I was aware of that, seems pretty wonky and much more likely to be challenged, but who knows."


I'll just say this: who do you trust more to push through unadulterated progressive ideas like Medicare for All without wavering? Do you think Bernie would let parliamentary procedures stop him if they threaten to get in the way?

8/28/2019 5:27:12 PM

StTexan
Veteran
105 Posts
user info
edit post

^^Yes, depends on the choices, whether I am team Warren. I do not recall saying I thought those were the only 3 choices.

Gillibrand out. Although she railroaded Franken, I always had higher hopes for her. Would have loved to see her and Trump tussle.

8/28/2019 6:02:47 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
28019 Posts
user info
edit post

How do you still not know what the choices are? And lol at railroading another creep that refuses to apologize or atone for his actions.

^^I mean, right or wrong, I trust Warren more, that seems clear from my statement.

It's a pretty slim difference, Warren and Bernie are the only ones that would make me happy as nominee. I'd support pretty much any others in a GE but wouldn't be thrilled.

8/28/2019 7:55:32 PM

daaave
Starting Lineup
88 Posts
user info
edit post

so apart from the filibuster which seems negligible, why else do you like warren more?

8/28/2019 8:25:19 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
28019 Posts
user info
edit post

It's neglible to you, it's a deal breaker issue to me.

8/28/2019 8:33:30 PM

StTexan
Veteran
105 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^I never said I didn’t. You don’t read well.

8/28/2019 8:41:33 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
28019 Posts
user info
edit post

Lmao fucking tulsi went on tucker

8/28/2019 9:35:19 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
49095 Posts
user info
edit post

Not for the first time.

If “rigging” was a thing then Yang certainly wouldn’t have qualified. Tulsi just isn’t that popular. And if anyone is complaining about Williamson not making it, well

8/29/2019 8:07:32 AM

dtownral
All American
25174 Posts
user info
edit post

she said the process wasn't transparent, which doesn't make sense

8/29/2019 8:17:04 AM

shoot
All American
6421 Posts
user info
edit post

If Warren gets elected, America is gonna be fucking academic

The future first gentleman:

Quote :
"Professor
Bruce Hartling Mann

Born April 27, 1950 (age 69)
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.
Occupation Law professor
Title Carl F. Schipper, Jr. Professor of Law
Spouse(s) Elizabeth Warren (m. 1980)
Academic background
Alma mater Brown University (BA, MA)
Yale University (MPhil, JD, PhD)

Thesis "Rationality, Legal Change, and Community in Connecticut, 1690–1760."
Academic work
Institutions Harvard Law School
Washington University in St. Louis"

8/29/2019 2:40:15 PM

StTexan
Veteran
105 Posts
user info
edit post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-he-campaigns-for-president-joe-biden-tells-a-moving-but-false-war-story/2019/08/29/b5159676-c9aa-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html

Please not this guy

8/29/2019 6:49:35 PM

bdmazur
hOmaha
14613 Posts
user info
edit post

Nothing new from Uncle Joe

Quote :
"https://www.businessinsider.com/plagiarism-scandal-joe-biden-first-presidential-run-1988-2019-3"

8/30/2019 10:32:31 AM

horosho
Veteran
109 Posts
user info
edit post

Tulsi's just reiterating the fact that most people on the left have no faith or trust in the process. They pick and choose which polls to use and the entire system was already designed to help them get their way and the use the media arm to push their narratives and drown out candidates they don't like. The DNC isn't democratic.

I'm also sick of hearing CNN pundits brag about how black evangelicals in the South will ultimately decide the nominee. Its probably true but its annoying because Trump will win all of those states and its all just an effort to get candidates to appeal to the most right-wing demographic of the party. We're talking about people who would be part the extreme far right if it wasn't for racism. Move those States to the end.

Quote :
"> reads that we're headed for a brokered convention
> double checks calendar that it's still august 2019"

Its important to see potential problems well in advance so that you can take the proper actions to prevent them from happening. Being proactive instead of reactive. Just because I'm the only one here talking about these things, doesn't mean I'm the only one talking about them.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/speed-dating-candidates-connect-early-super-delegates-amid-fear-convention-n1046016

Quote :
"Imagine thinking so little of the American people that you would think they would see Donald Trump as less of a Wall Street backer than Liz Warren.

Like how much antipathy to the ordinary voter must it take to say that and mean it??"

You mean the same American people who elected him in the first place? Maybe it is antipathy but ultimately, I don't blame the people as they are the victims everytime. All they did was consume the media. I really blame the faux-journalists and their corporate overlords who produced the conditions that allowed Trump to be elected.

Quote :
"As I understand the linked article, she'll be good for banks who are following the rules."

The rules are already created by the banks. This statement represents the clear divide.

Is the system critically flawed or do we just need to get rid of Trump and some other bad apples so that the "nice banks" and "good capitalists" can flourish?



Quote :
"Per the mid-year ActBlue filing, it was known who was leading the donor race nationwide. But here is how it broke down in Obama-Trump counties specifically:
Sanders: 33,185 donors
Buttigieg: 14,294 donors
Warren: 13,674 donors
Biden: 12,040 donors"


coastal liberal elites back at it again

[Edited on August 30, 2019 at 11:02 AM. Reason : big money runs the media and the political establishment]

[Edited on August 30, 2019 at 11:13 AM. Reason : letting south carolina decide the nominee]

8/30/2019 11:00:18 AM

Pupils DiL8t
All American
4234 Posts
user info
edit post

This is interesting candidate positioning.

8/30/2019 12:14:50 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
49095 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"You mean the same American people who elected him in the first place? "


There is just a weee bit of daylight between Clinton and Warren on big banks. One was cozy and gave cushy speeches regularly to Wall Street firms and the other has built her entire political identity on challenging them.

FWIW, it was obvious from day one Clinton would’ve been tougher on Wall Street and the top 1% than Trump yet so many (from the left and right) acted otherwise. Perception is dumb but also reality.

8/30/2019 1:34:44 PM

dtownral
All American
25174 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"FWIW, it was obvious from day one Clinton would’ve been tougher on Wall Street and the top 1% than Trump yet so many (from the left and right) acted otherwise. Perception is dumb but also reality."

clinton would have been tough on wall street?

8/30/2019 1:36:54 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
49095 Posts
user info
edit post

No. But on a relative basis to Trump, most likely on Wall Street but beyond a shadow of a doubt on the billionaire class. No way a corporate tax cut is implemented and no way she floats indexing capital gains to inflation.

But my point largely was drawing a distinction between Clinton and Warren.

(Regarding the ABC graphic, seems pretty fair. Maybe could’ve switched Bernie and Warren but they are neck and neck and Warren has more momentum).

[Edited on August 30, 2019 at 1:40 PM. Reason : C]

8/30/2019 1:39:19 PM

daaave
Starting Lineup
88 Posts
user info
edit post

The only good thing about Tulsi Gabbard is she annihilated Kamala Harris's campaign

8/30/2019 1:39:46 PM

qntmfred
retired
39329 Posts
user info
edit post

you're not a fan of her challenging the military industrial complex??

I don't understand why so many Bernie supporters are so dismissive of one of the the only people who really stuck their neck out to support Bernie in 16

[Edited on September 2, 2019 at 10:48 AM. Reason : shrug.gif]

9/2/2019 10:47:04 AM

rwoody
Save TWW
28019 Posts
user info
edit post

She's doesn't need the military cuz she's buddy buddy with the brutal dictators and courting the white nationalist militias

9/2/2019 10:50:28 AM

horosho
Veteran
109 Posts
user info
edit post

I'd love to see the link for where that fakenews came from.

9/2/2019 2:18:04 PM

rwoody
Save TWW
28019 Posts
user info
edit post

She's defends and meets with Assad, among others, and went on tucker Carlson

Go find the link yourself

9/2/2019 2:35:04 PM

dtownral
All American
25174 Posts
user info
edit post

Tulsi is a friend of the right, not the left, of course bernie supporters dont like her.

[Edited on September 2, 2019 at 3:53 PM. Reason : I assume some right wing overlap among Tulsi and Yang supporters? ]

9/2/2019 3:50:47 PM

qntmfred
retired
39329 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
" She's defends and meets with Assad"


it's a shame the corporate democrat wing and the their allies in the media have been so successful convincing so many on the left that Tulsi is an Assad apologist. It's been a fairly transparent smear since 2017 and so many are still enthusiastically swallowing it whole

9/2/2019 8:58:47 PM

dtownral
All American
25174 Posts
user info
edit post

Did the corporate dems also write her tweets and travel for her?

[Edited on September 2, 2019 at 11:07 PM. Reason : #narrative ]

9/2/2019 11:06:39 PM

BanjoMan
All American
8950 Posts
user info
edit post

wow. Biden, Warren and Sanders.

incoming Trump win.

9/2/2019 11:25:56 PM

horosho
Veteran
109 Posts
user info
edit post

Good lord, Meeting with a foreign leader does not make you an apologist. Its called diplomacy but diplomacy and fact finding investigations make it much more difficult to go to war. This isn't a 'left vs right' issue. Its becoming an outdated characterization. Yang and Tulsi (and to some degree Trump and Sanders) are post 'left vs right' candidates. Its up vs down now.

[Edited on September 3, 2019 at 12:15 AM. Reason : Tucker Carlson at least gets that]

9/3/2019 12:11:54 AM

utowncha
Veteran
142 Posts
user info
edit post

if biden were 10 years younger it would be a no brainer.

9/4/2019 6:29:36 AM

Geppetto
All American
1681 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
" no way she floats indexing capital gains to inflation."


For what it's worth, not that it matters much now, but Clinton did have an almost exact proposal.

Her plan, while note specifically tied to inflation, I don't think, was aimed at reducing taxation on investments, with the goal of incentivizing holding investments long term rather than short-term/shortsighted trading.

It essentially made all investments similar to a roth if held long enough, with tax rates suggested at the 0% - 5% range.

I'd actually suggest this is more aggressive than the inflation metric.

9/4/2019 2:41:57 PM

horosho
Veteran
109 Posts
user info
edit post

Tulsi was also held out of the CNN climate change townhall even though people behind her in the polls are in. If you look at CNN's own polling, Gabbard has never trailed Klobuchar or Castro who are both in. Obvious rigging that will end up being blamed on Russia. If democrats had any integrity, they wouldn't just accept a rigged primary.

9/4/2019 4:32:59 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
49095 Posts
user info
edit post

Actually, no one cares.

9/4/2019 6:17:47 PM

StTexan
Veteran
105 Posts
user info
edit post

^^I agree with ^. I find your uses of “if” condescending too.

9/4/2019 6:28:24 PM

horosho
Veteran
109 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Actually, no one cares."

Thats literally my point. The hypocrisy in only caring about unfairness and corruption in elections when a candidate you like is negatively affected. The shameless hypocrisy is what I was referencing when I brought up integrity.

Quote :
"Climate change solutions require cooperation with China/Russia, which new Cold War makes impossible. As president, I’ll stand up against the military industrial complex & warmongering media—Will anyone else? If not, their “plans” re climate change are worthless #ClimateTownHall"

-tulsigabbard
Tulsi may not be the best candidate but she brings unique foreign policy takes and that is the one area where every is guaranteed to make an impact.

9/4/2019 11:28:36 PM

Bullet
All American
24899 Posts
user info
edit post

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bidens-eye-fills-with-blood-during-cnn-climate-town-hall

9/5/2019 9:00:52 AM

dtownral
All American
25174 Posts
user info
edit post

Was tulsi excluded because of a conspiracy or did CNN only invite candidates who have qualified for the next debate?

9/5/2019 9:15:14 AM

daaave
Starting Lineup
88 Posts
user info
edit post

My biggest issue with Tulsi (apart from not trusting her), is why the fuck is she running? Bernie is better in every way, and she was a surrogate in 2016. I can understand if he was literally falling apart like Biden...but he's not. She's an opportunist.

9/5/2019 10:47:38 AM

daaave
Starting Lineup
88 Posts
user info
edit post

Warren's ideology is to impose flimsy rules on capitalists, rather than change the system that allows them to exploit us all. She's the 2020 version of Barack Obama.

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/9/5/climate_crisis_should_us_nationalize_fossil

Quote :
"ROBERT WOOD: Bernie Sanders has endorsed the idea of the public ownership of utilities, arguing that we can’t adequately solve this crisis without removing the profit motive from the distribution of essential needs like energy. As president, would you be willing to call out capitalism in this way and advocate for the public ownership of our utilities?

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: Gosh, you know, I’m not sure that that’s what gets you to the solution. I’m perfectly willing to take on giant corporations. I think I’ve been known to do that once or twice. But, for me, I think the way we get there is we just say, “Sorry, guys, but by 2035, you’re done. You’re not going to be using any more carbon-based fuels,” that that gets us to the right place. And if somebody wants to make a profit from building better solar panels and generating better battery storage, I’m not opposed to that. What I’m opposed to is when they do it in a way that hurts everybody else. You shouldn’t be able to externalize these costs. That’s the problem with fossil fuels right now.

I think that the best way we go forward here is we open up the opportunities. We open up the possibilities. We invest in the science. We invest in the manufacturing. We invest in the pieces that let us build a future together going forward. But yeah, I just want to be clear: We’ve got to have tough rules that we are willing to enforce. And that means we have got to be willing to fight back against these giant industries. And that’s where the whole thing starts for me. We put them on their back foot, then we have a real chance to make the changes we need to make."

9/5/2019 7:26:56 PM

StTexan
Veteran
105 Posts
user info
edit post

Abrams as VP...why do some folks think this is a possibility? I just don’t see it.

9/5/2019 10:11:31 PM

dtownral
All American
25174 Posts
user info
edit post

Warren has better bona fides than Obama

9/5/2019 10:59:06 PM

UJustWait84
All American
24797 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^

I don't think it comes across as all that flimsy, personally. We can't just get all of the progressive things we want all at once the second we have a new president, and I think Warren does a pretty good job of stating a desired outcome and trying to paint a realistic timeline. 2035 sounds pretty reasonable to me, given that a number of EU countries have stated similar goals, and they have actually been working hard to wean themselves off of fossil fuels.

My problem with Bernie, aside from his shouting and complete lack of charisma (sorry folks, he sounds like an old wheezing windbag to me), has always been the way he presents his ideas, as if they can just magically happen overnight.

[Edited on September 6, 2019 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2019 1:13:20 PM

daaave
Starting Lineup
88 Posts
user info
edit post

As long as there is oil in the ground and countries or corporations willing to pay for it, oil companies will do everything they can to extract it. This is what Warren fails to recognize. There is no such thing as friendly capitalism. Every oil reserve in the United States should be nationalized and controlled by an overarching energy plan, and this needs to happen as soon as possible.

9/6/2019 3:08:21 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6159 Posts
user info
edit post

When Nixon signed the 1st clean air act and lead in gasoline was eventually phased out, it was done without seizing the oil/gas/auto industries.

When Reagan signed the Montreal Protocols that reduced CFC emissions by 90%+ and helped the ozone layer the spray paint can marketplace persisted.

When HW Bush signed the 1990 Clean air act, NOx (and a variety of other stuff) emissions were reduced by ~70%, but power plants from that era still operate (in some places).



If we make fossil fuels reflect their true cost (carbon tax) or make other forms of energy cheaper (green energy incentives) the demand for them will collapse. A significant portion of US oil producing wells can’t even turn a profit unless oil is $65 a barrel.

I’m not saying we can snap our fingers, throw some laws out there, and suddenly drop CO2 emissions by 90%, but I’d argue market based systems should absolutely be considered and in this country have a better track record anyways.

9/6/2019 6:45:46 PM

UJustWait84
All American
24797 Posts
user info
edit post

^

Basically, this. Once solar/other renewable become dirt cheap, fossil fuels won't be able to compete, and big oil knows this. That's why you see BP/Exxon/whatever run tons of dumb ads extolling the virtues of renewable energy while knowing full well the profit margins aren't there yet.

It's silly to think it's possible to take down one of the most powerful industries in the world in a few years, but it's downright stupid to think that a US president snap their fingers and will it into action without massive resistance ala GOP.

I get that in a perfect world the government would actually being to mandate that corporations do the ethical thing on demand, but dream on.

9/6/2019 7:15:32 PM

horosho
Veteran
109 Posts
user info
edit post

The examples listed by terdferguson all represent regulations that changed the way industries work. We don't want to change the way the fossil fuel industry works. This is a totally different beast because we need to destroy the fossil fuel industry completely and do it as soon as possible.

Supply and demand doesn't care about the long-term future of the environment, justice for the impoverished, or tipping points. Capitalism isn't going to solve this problem in time. Its only going to extract as much money as possible for as long as possible.
Quote :
"My problem with Bernie, aside from his shouting and complete lack of charisma (sorry folks, he sounds like an old wheezing windbag to me), has always been the way he presents his ideas, as if they can just magically happen overnight."

Its called a revolution and people who understand the urgency of the situation are mad as hell. I can't understand/trust anyone who doesn't come off as mad as hell. We aren't going to strive for a world that is anything less than perfect.

Without revolutionary ideas, you cannot bring about a revolution. The idea is that by bering on the ballot, Bernie would bring out the silent majority of people who aren't voters at all right now because they think the entire system is too corrupt to bring about any real change. With those people activated, the entire political map as we know it goes out the window because the house and senate are transformed and of course president Bernie could do all of his stuff seemingly "overnight" with a speaker like AOC and a senate that made it in on his coattails. Just look at how Trump transformed the house, and senate and how he owns them now.

Bernie's best attribute is that he is rock solid and has been for the same things for forever. He was talking about climate change in the 80s. We can't just trust a former Republican and self-identified capitalist saying this kind of stuff.

Quote :
"Was tulsi excluded because of a conspiracy or did CNN only invite candidates who have qualified for the next debate?"

tulsi qualified for the debate and then they gymnasticized the goalposts to keep her out. that was the conspiracy

[Edited on September 6, 2019 at 11:13 PM. Reason : k]

9/6/2019 11:10:39 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » 2020 Democrat Primaries Page 1 ... 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38, Prev Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2019 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.