What's all this 'when she claims to reject them'. You've already made up your mind that it's all a gimmick that she won't have to reject anybody because she won't have a wealthy donor. Pathetic
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Her point is wealthy donors won't be given ambassadorial jobs and deserving candidates would. Maybe she won't have wealthy donors or maybe she'll change her mind about it later. Once she becomes president, maybe people will donate money to her inauguration campaigns. Or she may start a charity and people would give money there expecting handouts. But why do you need to bitch about this just because she may not wealthy donors?
Yes and I think that is worse than a bribed ambassador's position, and from her pledge I don't see any other explanation.
Sure, which is why I added that bit about $2700. It both seems like a fairly low amount if the reward is ambassadorship, *and* there would be 1000s of such donations in a general election, so how would she choose the ambassador.
Well, if Bernie gave an ambassadorship to a $2700 donor, and that donor happened to be Leo Hindrey or David Geffen, then that would be what Warren is saying she’d ban.
And furthermore, it is obviously also an assault on Trump sending his rich friends out to be ambassadors.
https://publicintegrity.org/federal...bassador-legacy-plum-postings-for-big-donors/
lm.ao
I bet trump is quaking in fear of this assault on him personally
lm.ao
I bet trump is quaking in fear of this assault on him personally
During his second term, Obama named 31 campaign “bundlers” — supporters who raised at least $50,000 to fund his presidential campaigns— as ambassadors. Obama tapped nearly all of these bundlers to serve in Western European nations or other highly developed and stable countries such as Canada and New Zealand.
Another 39 of Obama’s second-term ambassador nominees are political appointees who either gave his campaign money or are known political allies. They, too, largely enjoyed postings to wealthy and peaceful nations — Ireland, Denmark and Australia, for example — or high-profile countries such as China and India
Another 39 of Obama’s second-term ambassador nominees are political appointees who either gave his campaign money or are known political allies. They, too, largely enjoyed postings to wealthy and peaceful nations — Ireland, Denmark and Australia, for example — or high-profile countries such as China and India
Did I miss something? Is Obama running for President again?
Yes is always a good assumption
no it's not. and I proved that by showing the most recent democratic president doing the same thing. it's entirely relevant to the point that you made, which is wrong.
Warren: when I am president, I will continue to live at my house in Washington DC and not move into the White House
Carolina Red: This is obviously an assault on Trump moving his family into the White House
Carolina Red: This is obviously an assault on Trump moving his family into the White House
@Eboue - maybe take Warren’s word for it...
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/28/politics/elizabeth-warren-new-plan/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/&rm=1
maybe take the article you posted's word for it
just another example of liberals wanting to think that the bad things in this country started with trump
just another example of liberals wanting to think that the bad things in this country started with trump
The only person saying that is you.
In the meantime, Warren directed her comments at Trump...
My bad I only quoted the relevant passage. I should have bolded.
Yes it was.
You done now? Or do you want to continue pretending Warren didn’t say exactly what I said she did?
There is an actual conflict on interest with Bernie campaign which I'm surprised have been brought up in two ways. He has either Ben or Jerry from the ice cream company on his team. First attack should we fake socialist, second should be about then having unsure influence over his policies (agriculture, nutrition, etc).
Is it common to have owners of big companies on campaign staff? Because it seems wrong to me.
Edit- missed the Trump sentence. This isn't a new thing, so props to her for calling out a common bipartisan practice. Still don't understand your 2700 example given that a few thousand others would have paid the same.
Why would anyone support eliminating private health insurance?
Not even Bernie's bill does that. What it does is make Medicare the default option, which everyone has free access to. However, people are capable of purchasing supplemental health care through private insurers if they have the means. I think this is the right answer.
The question 'Do you support medicare for all and wiping out private insurers' is a false premise.
She can say whatever she wants, the facts say something else as the article you posted shows. Everyone following politics on any level more advanced than "liz Warren is Hermione" knows that trump is just another in a long line of presidents who did it and therefore it isnt an assault on trump
He’s always had some wealthy supporters. Fox News reported on it back in the 2016 campaign cycle.
This stuff goes into why folks say that Bernie is only a “democratic socialist” in America... in the rest of the world, he’s a social democrat, which leaves room for having wealthy folks support your large safety net programs.
Again... nobody said the opposite. You’ve picked a fight out of thin air. Good job
I know he's had rich supporters but not businessmen as surrogates.
Because commodifying healthcare is inherently inefficient. Any dollar spent on healthcare that is not used for the direct care of people or future research and development instead diverts to private capital interests leads to worse health outcomes and more deaths.
I've provided context. Didnt even quote you. You've picked the fight if anyone has.
Last edited:
Alrighty.
fecking idiotic that we have to denigrate a good pledge because Sanders didn't say it because obviously anyone who is not Sanders can't mean anything they say.
Can something be a criticism of trump and not only a criticism of Trump
@Florida Man Look at this job the dirty MSM pulled on our candidate bro. Let's take revenge
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/andrew-yang-debate-nbc-microphone-1388053
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/andrew-yang-debate-nbc-microphone-1388053
One would think.
Oh man.
The Media went for the drama.
My takeaway from last night were the following.
1. Biden was shown up for the hollow candidate I always said he was.
2. His baggage was correctly exposed by Harris.
3. Bennet showed up Biden’s empty claims about being able to work with the Republicans. Obama/Biden pretty much bent over for them.
Bernie’s points were overshadowed by Harris attacking Biden, which was accurate.
1. The Roe v Wade issues raised by Maddow was brushed aside by Bernie saying Medicare For All will negate anything the SC decided.
2. The clear difference between him and Biden with regards to the Iraq War vote.
All the more relevant with regards to the Iran situation. The country does not want another war.
3. The explanation of how to pay for Medicare For All via taxes which is what the corporate presenters wanted him to say was well done in the short time given. He did a very good job in the Fox Town Hall meeting where he was given a reasonable time. And Bennet came across as the perfect corporate shill in his defense of private insurance.
4. The Climate Change emphasis of 12 years maximum as elaborated by scientists totally dismissed any other long timelines espoused by the others.
5. Finally Bernie’s closing statement about the total ineffectiveness of candidates like he was on the stage with over the decades of bringing about Real change was effective.
My takeaway from last night were the following.
1. Biden was shown up for the hollow candidate I always said he was.
2. His baggage was correctly exposed by Harris.
3. Bennet showed up Biden’s empty claims about being able to work with the Republicans. Obama/Biden pretty much bent over for them.
Bernie’s points were overshadowed by Harris attacking Biden, which was accurate.
1. The Roe v Wade issues raised by Maddow was brushed aside by Bernie saying Medicare For All will negate anything the SC decided.
2. The clear difference between him and Biden with regards to the Iraq War vote.
All the more relevant with regards to the Iran situation. The country does not want another war.
3. The explanation of how to pay for Medicare For All via taxes which is what the corporate presenters wanted him to say was well done in the short time given. He did a very good job in the Fox Town Hall meeting where he was given a reasonable time. And Bennet came across as the perfect corporate shill in his defense of private insurance.
4. The Climate Change emphasis of 12 years maximum as elaborated by scientists totally dismissed any other long timelines espoused by the others.
5. Finally Bernie’s closing statement about the total ineffectiveness of candidates like he was on the stage with over the decades of bringing about Real change was effective.
Trumpers are not the only cultists around.
I made a post about this earlier today. I have no idea how to enact revenge other than making a donation. I personally would prefer to close down NBC but I’m not a trillionaire.
The question Dems need to ask is not who their perfect candidate is, but rather who is best placed to swing Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Florida?
Bernie, bro.
Also these kinds of arguments are usually flawed. Someone may oppose a bill because there's an amendment slipped in that's disagreeable, or because of a small aspect that they're not happy with but it doesn't mean they oppose the reason for the bill. You could have a bill that looks to protect abortion rejected by a progressive because they support the aim of the bill absolutely but there's an amendment in there that says that the mother is entitled to less care/rights than they think is fair. That then gets packaged as 'ThiS PeRsON SaYs ThEYrE AgAinSt AbORtIoN BuT YeT VotEd to MaKE It iLleGal' without anyone putting any actual thought into it. Too many people taking things at face value, black and white, simplistic and then construct narratives around some kind of technicality and they offer nothing to the debate.
The question should just be 'Kamala, can you explain what made you vote against this bill at the time?'
Last edited:
- Status