2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eriku said:
I mean, it's been pretty clear that Warren doesn't want to align herself too much with the full concept of M4A as outlined by Bernie. She probably fancies her electability more if she doesn't try to be as radical as Bernie, and wants to be more centrist, and therefore she's been as vague as she can about her commitment to that. For anybody wanting meaningful change and not just Trump out, Bernie seems to be the only real alternative.
Click to expand...

She is trying to get a broader base of voters.
That is fine.
But there is no pleasing everyone.

And I must say I do not think Bernie is radical at all.
He is talking common sense.
Health Care, Education, Social Security, Housing.
These are basic needs.
If we do not address them with sensible solutions people who are in need create a greater burden on society.

I once asked a Republican friend of mine what happens to people who cannot make ends meet on Social Security benefits? He said there are other avenues. Obviously he meant going to the County for help, which many older people do.
here in Minnesota anyone over 60 can apply for food benefits. I'm not talking about stamps.

The point is we pay federal taxes and also state taxes. So the same people pay these taxes too.
Bernie is talking of expanding Social Security. He means lifting caps.

The liberal media brands him a Socialist. He is not. He simply is trying to remove the Profit motive from health care and education for example and expanding existing programs in other areas.
 
Carolina Red said:
She wants to restructure our economic system. That's meaningful change.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizab...m-businesses-are-bracing-11570643931?mod=e2tw
Click to expand...

I don't have an account at WSJ, and a headline's not enough to convince me. I also know that she's bolstered her primary funding using corporate money that was raised for her senate re-election, and that she's swore off super-PAC money for the primaries and has said she's lifting that ban when the general comes around. She just does not come across as super-convincing. Better than Trump, sure... but that doesn't do much for me if the general trajectory of US policy keeps veering to the right.
 
Red Dreams said:
If she can do that, I agree.
Click to expand...
Interesting. You dismissed it off-hand just a few hours ago.
Eriku said:
I don't have an account at WSJ, and a headline's not enough to convince me. I also know that she's bolstered her primary funding using corporate money that was raised for her senate re-election, and that she's swore off super-PAC money for the primaries and has said she's lifting that ban when the general comes around. She just does not come across as super-convincing. Better than Trump, sure... but that doesn't do much for me if the general trajectory of US policy keeps veering to the right.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not about to copy and paste the whole article, it's a long-form read.
 
Carolina Red said:
duh, hence the :drool:
Click to expand...

But what about this post from 2 years before in a completely separate thread?

Carolina Red said:
I've thought for awhile that this would be a great idea. An exam based on the issues. If you fail, you cannot vote.

Representative democracies, hell the Athenian democracy itself, were not established with universal suffrage FOR A REASON.
Click to expand...
 
syrian_scholes said:
Wouldn't be better to argue the point instead of a meaningless reply? People can have weird thoughts/idea while also having high IQ.
Click to expand...
You appear to equate intellect with being liberal. That's why I put the emoji there. That is a silly argument.

You can disagree with a test all you want - I dont disagree that something like that would be flawed which is why IQ test isn't perhaps the right terminology to use - that's also why I added EQ in my original post about it - in some ways emotional intelligence and the ability to empathize are arguably more important.
 
Redplane said:
You appear to equate intellect with being liberal. That's why I put the emoji there. That is a silly argument.

You can disagree with a test all you want - I dont disagree that something like that would be flawed which is why IQ test isn't perhaps the right terminology to use - that's also why I added EQ in my original post about it - in some ways emotional intelligence and the ability to empathize are arguably more important.
Click to expand...
I'm not equating, in fact I'm saying it has nothing to do with it, but I can see Trump losing in a similar case. :lol:
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
If 18 is minimum voting age maybe there should be a maximum as well
Click to expand...
Just lower the voting age to 16.

Eboue is right that brain juice is dripping from the ears of everyone grandparents they don't have these god awful view simply due to their age, its more to with the fact they form a class similar to the french peasants marx talks about in the Eighteenth Brumaire.

Please as this thread shows once you start limiting voting, it doesn't stop.
 
Dumb people being allowed to vote is the flaw of democracy. That's not new info is it? A shite species that adopts democracy will have a shite government.
 
KirkDuyt said:
Dumb people being allowed to vote is the flaw of democracy. That's not new info is it? A shite species that adopts democracy will have a shite government.
Click to expand...
The people you consider dumb most likely, rightly or wrongly, consider you dumb as well.

Democracy is the least-worst governing option is precisely because of the constant squabbles. We get nothing done but kind of prolonging our slow descent into the inevitable armageddon. If we have a few Orwellian superstates into this age I doubt the species would survive.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
The people you consider dumb most likely, rightly or wrongly, consider you dumb as well.

Democracy is the least-worst governing option is precisely because of the constant squabbles. We get nothing done but kind of prolonging our slow descent into the inevitable armageddon. If we have a few Orwellian superstates into this age I doubt the species would survive.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I included myself in the dumb people group to begin with, I didn't specify that. Not that I do though. I'm not ashamed of claiming I'm smarter than most people, here in the safe anonymous space that is the internet. Dumb isn't the right word either way. It's powerful people with a lack of morals that are democracy's real enemy. They keep the masses misinformed and dangle a make belief carrot in front of them to gain their votes.

There's 2 kinds of Trump supporters; the dumb deplorables who genuinely think he holds their best interests at heart and the smart rich people who know Trump is a terrible president, but don't give a feck, because they found a way to enrich themselves from his precidency.

That being said, most democrats like that old plastic lady and the other millionaires over in Washington aren't much better. The whole govermental system in the states is fecked imo.
 
So Tulsi is considering boycotting the next debate. Which is interesting because the last debate boycotted her.
 


But in a statement to NBC News, the Warren campaign clarified that the candidate would indeed attend high-dollar events for the party (where individuals can donate tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars) — though not for the campaign (where the maximum primary and general election donation is a combined $5,600).

“When Elizabeth is the Democratic nominee for president, she’s not going to change a thing in how she runs her campaign. That means no PAC money. No federal lobbyist money. No special access or call time with rich donors or big dollar fundraisers to underwrite our campaign,” said Kristen Orthman, the campaign’s communications director.

“When she is the nominee, she will continue to raise money and attend events that are open to the press to make sure the Democratic National Committee, state and local parties, and Democratic candidates everywhere have the resources not just to beat Donald Trump but also to win back Congress and state legislatures all across the country.”

The distinction might open up Warren to charges of hypocrisy; why refuse to attend high-dollar fundraisers for your campaign, but gladly attend them for the party?

But it probably quiets Democrats like Gifford fearful that Warren — if she's the nominee — would unilaterally disarm against the Trump-RNC money machine.
Click to expand...
 
Didn’t warren say there shouldn’t be super pac donors in the primary but that she would avail of them in the general? Or something to that effect. Thought it was odd.
 
I wonder if the decriminalisation she talked about includes repealing FOSTA-SESTA. It has been a complete disaster for online prostitution, which makes the industry much more risky and abusive to previously independent sex workers. And that’s only making amends (she voted for it, alongside every single person in Congress currently running).
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I wonder if the decriminalisation she talked about includes repealing FOSTA-SESTA. It has been a complete disaster for online prostitution, which makes the industry much more risky and abusive to previously independent sex workers. And that’s only making amends (she voted for it, alongside every single person in Congress currently running).
Click to expand...
I think there was a push to get Bernie not to vote for the FOSTA bill but he ignored it. The fact that Warren deserves credit for saying sex workers are also workers shows how low the bar is at the moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.