Healthcare for all & a realistic minimum wage will get votes. Plus Bernie or a get-the-vote-out VP. Kaine was a nobody! Not one person outside his family was excited about him!
Healthcare for all & a realistic minimum wage will get votes. Plus Bernie or a get-the-vote-out VP. Kaine was a nobody! Not one person outside his family was excited about him!
L L wrote:
Um, not so sure bro... wrote:
Maybe to the Left of Trump but that is a vast space to be in. I think a moderate would be preferable.
Dems need to go way left.
These base Republicans today wouldn't vote for Reagan if he ran as a Democrat.
No point in trying to appease them or work for their vote.
If Trump is still on the ballot somehow, the moderates won't vote for him.
Get the fringe lefties motivated and excited about their candidate. Many of them didn't vote for Hillary or Obama.
Socialism now!
+1
We can win on a platform of medicare for all and free higher education.
I am only being partially sarcastic. (Socialism now!, for example)
I am socially liberal and fiscally liberal.
Fiscal conservatives present themselves as being anti-deficit.
But in reality, elected fiscal conservatives are the ones that run the highest deficits.
They are really just for low taxes.
Plans that are fiscally liberal are more likely to pay for themselves and therefore be more fiscally responsible.
Dollar-for-dollar exchanging tax breaks for high earners for tax breaks for low earners generates more consumption and therefore more tax revenues, like sales tax. And since low earners will spend more of it, it means higher corporate sales and higher corporate profits. So high earners will make more.
Trickle down does not work.
You give big corporate tax breaks and the buy back their stock.
Welfare for the poor works great.
You give someone a rent voucher. They get a place to sleep. The landlord gets rental income.
You give food stamps. Poor people eat. Grocery stores get money.
If you provide public education, you get a better workforce for businesses and consumers with more money to spend helping both businesses and tax revenue.
You provide public healthcare, you get a more productive workforce and again consumers with more money to spend.
A fiscally liberal path leads to a bigger pie. But it's a macro economic scale and more complicated.
Fiscal conservative is simpler and easier to understand and therefore to sell. But it doesn't create a better result.
(so I am definitely not Flagpole under another name)
My only concern with a far left candidate is if they can get elected and what chance they have of implementing their plans.
I may like Kamala Harris' tax and spending plan, but it has zero chance of passing any senate vote.
But at least get the momentum pulled left.
And to keep it Trump related, Trump has his ideas that he wants to pass but can't because the president can only do so much and needs cooperation with Congress.
Opus1 wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Ridiculous position...proper and superb education, proper focus (constitutional law, political science and civil rights and foreign relations), proper government experience including leadership positions as State Senator (in a big populous state with big problems) and US Senator.
One of the flaws in your assertions is that Obama was, by his own admission, not very effective inside the Capitol.
You seem to mistake his "rock-star" public persona with his mostly ineffective work as a US Senator. A lot of misinformed people make this same mistake, so you shouldn't worry much. You have a lot of company.
Just a few quotes about his time in the Senate from a great read on his rise.
"But inside the Senate, Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, was 99th in seniority and in the minority party his first two years. In committee hearings, he had to wait his turn until every other senator had asked questions. He once telephoned reporters himself to draw attention to his amendments. And some senior colleagues were cool to the newcomer, whom they considered naïve."
"Determined to be viewed as substantive, Mr. Obama kept his head down, declining Sunday talk show invitations for his first year, and consulted Senate elders for advice. He was cautious — even on the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a Senate candidate. Though he spoke in favor of a drawdown, he voted against the withdrawal of troops. He proposed legislation calling for a drawdown after he began running for president.
And while he rightly takes credit for steering through an ethics overhaul that reformers called a “gold standard,” like most freshmen he did not play a significant role in passing much other legislation and disappointed some Democrats for not becoming a more prominent voice in other important debates."
Early on in his tenure in Washington, he concluded that it would be hard to have much of an impact inside the Senate, where partisan conflict increasingly provoked filibuster threats, nomination fights and near gridlock even on routine spending bills.
“I think it’s very possible to have a Senate career here that is not particularly useful,” he said in an interview, reflecting on his first year. And it would be better for his political prospects not to become a Senate insider, which could saddle him with the kind of voting record that has tripped up so many senators who would be president.
"To others, though, the mismatch between Mr. Obama’s outside profile and his inside accomplishments wore thin. While some senators spent hours in closed-door meetings over immigration reform in early 2007, he dropped in only occasionally, prompting complaints that he was something of a dilettante."
"He joined a bipartisan group, which included Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and Mr. Kennedy, that agreed to stick to a final compromise bill even though it was sure to face challenges from interest groups on both sides. Yet when the measure reached the floor, Mr. Obama distanced himself from the compromise, advocating changes sought by labor groups. The bill collapsed."
"To some in the bipartisan coalition, Mr. Obama’s move showed an unwillingness to take a tough stand.
“He folded like a cheap suit,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a close ally of Mr. McCain. “What it showed me is you are not an agent of change. Because to really change things in this place you have to get beat up now and then.”
Welp. There goes Flagpole's argument that Obama's time in the Senate was a great preparation for him as President.
agip wrote:
Just to be clearer -
the Dems should not go hard left because that would hurt them with indies.
the Dems should put people of color on the ticket, because that will help turnout in the election.
Hard left white guy, like bernie, would be the worst bloody thing ever.
No. Free healthcare will get the Indie vote.
agip wrote:
Just to be clearer -
the Dems should not go hard left because that would hurt them with indies.
the Dems should put people of color on the ticket, because that will help turnout in the election.
Hard left white guy, like bernie, would be the worst bloody thing ever.
Won't this just mobilize the racists that elected Trump? And mobilize them even more?
Kevinator wrote:
agip wrote:
Just to be clearer -
the Dems should not go hard left because that would hurt them with indies.
the Dems should put people of color on the ticket, because that will help turnout in the election.
Hard left white guy, like bernie, would be the worst bloody thing ever.
No. Free healthcare will get the Indie vote.
you go and tell tens of millions of rich, middle class and upper middle class Dems that they will lose their private health insurance and have government supplied healthcare, and then get back to me. they will not be pleased at all.
yeah they hate trump and they won't really believe medicare for all will happen, but it will not be a selling point to tens of millions of Dems.
What? Wait.... wrote:
agip wrote:
Just to be clearer -
the Dems should not go hard left because that would hurt them with indies.
the Dems should put people of color on the ticket, because that will help turnout in the election.
Hard left white guy, like bernie, would be the worst bloody thing ever.
Won't this just mobilize the racists that elected Trump? And mobilize them even more?
I think there would be far more african american votes for Dems gained by a black person on the ticket....than white votes gained by trump.
it's really about A-A turnout in Prez elections. If they show, like they showed for Obama, the dems win. if they don't show, the Rs win.
The Rs understand this much better than the Dems - that's why they are working so hard to suppress african american votes. It's a matter of survival for them. White Dems don't quite understand this.
"Here's how we know we can trust Mueller
First, Mueller’s reputation is unimpeachable inside the Justice Department. His conduct was so far beyond question during his tenure as FBI director, transitioning the bureau to address foreign terrorism in the wake of 9/11, that his term was extended by a Democratic president despite his initial appointment by a Republican.
His selection as special counsel in 2017 did not come into question until his critics realized that his investigation was vigorously committed to finding the truth, not just to checking the box. To the extent he has been publicly reviled by some since then, it is because Mueller has prosecuted those he has developed convincing evidence against — as any prosecutor would, in any other case, without fear or favor.
It is nonsense for Republicans, the party that has historically billed itself as tough on crime — and a president who once exhorted law enforcement officials to avoid being “too nice” to people they were arresting — to criticize Mueller for doing his job. No one should be fooled by this. It defies common sense to criticize Mueller as untrustworthy when every defendant he has indicted before Stone, except for Russian defendants who have not submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, has either pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. Mueller has lived up to his reputation in the eyes of judges and jurors; the confidence of these close-up, sometimes critical observers should give people confidence in the investigation.
Second, we can judge for ourselves the credibility of the Mueller investigation by the way it has been conducted. No leaks. No political diatribes from the bully pulpit of the prosecutor. Neither the office nor its indictments have identified people who are not being charged or issues under investigation. This is done to protect people who may ultimately not be charged from damage to their reputation, and Mueller’s team has behaved scrupulously.
And when BuzzFeed recently ran a story that the special counsel’s office believed was not accurate, Mueller and his team issued a rare statement saying so.
Judge them by their demonstrated fairness. When criticized, they have not responded. They have kept their heads down and conducted themselves in a manner that confirms they can and should be trusted.
Mueller has faith in the system, we should too
Mueller has confined his public pronouncements to pleadings and to the courtroom, as he should. And so far, we’ve seen that he only pleads what he can prove.
We do not know how this investigation ends. Confidence in the inquiry, at this stage, is not an endorsement of its ultimate result, because we do not know what this will be. Mueller may conclude that the president was completely unaware of Russian efforts to influence the election. He may conclude that while there is some evidence senior campaign officials conspired with Russia, the admissible evidence is insufficient to establish guilt at trial. It could be that Roger Stone will be the last defendant indicted by the special counsel. Or there could be more to come.
Whatever the result, Mueller has conducted this investigation in a manner that deserves the confidence of more than 50 percent of the people, whether they are political supporters of the president or not. Mueller is neither villain nor avenger. He is a prosecutor — one who has shown that he knows how to stay in his lane but at the same time will not yield it.
Early in the investigation, Mueller learned there was an effort underway to smear him and pay women money to falsely accuse him of sexual harassment. His reaction was classic Mueller — the special counsel reported the crime to the FBI and went back to work. No hysterics. No finger-pointing. Mueller trusted the system, when he himself was at risk. We can trust him."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-why-faith-robert-mueller-100003943.html
Trump trusts Mueller’s integrity; that’s why he wants to get rid of him.
No, no, none other than the president of the united states tells us that the mueller investigation is a witch hunt, a democratic coup, led by a bunch of corrupt, angry hillary lovers.
and he's the president - he wouldn't lie to us. What if he gets caught? Would be very embarassing to him and the Republican Party.
I mean, could you imagine all those church going evangelist christians who voted for him the first time? If they find out Trump has been lying to them, they'll never vote for Trump again. I mean those are moral, upstanding, religious people.
So no, no, your piece is just more democratic agitprop. The president of the united states wouldn't like that that. He knows something we don't.
Right wing media fixation with Cortez continues. Since FOX took the front page baton from HRC, Cortez has been on every single days for weeks now. Today they are featuring her and 2 other women, who of course only happen to be Muslim (FOX wouldn’t want to draw anxiety and anger from conservatives now would they). They are claiming these women are disrupting the Dems and have basically taken over control. Man, they even fear monger the other side!
agip wrote:
No, no, none other than the president of the united states tells us that the mueller investigation is a witch hunt, a democratic coup, led by a bunch of corrupt, angry hillary lovers.
and he's the president - he wouldn't lie to us. What if he gets caught? Would be very embarassing to him and the Republican Party.
I mean, could you imagine all those church going evangelist christians who voted for him the first time? If they find out Trump has been lying to them, they'll never vote for Trump again. I mean those are moral, upstanding, religious people.
So no, no, your piece is just more democratic agitprop. The president of the united states wouldn't like that that. He knows something we don't.
Anyone who calls themselves a Christian and yet still supports Donald Trump is anything but.
Obviously you are being sarcastic here, but here are the REAL reasons "Christians" don't care if Trump lies to them.
1) He's a man. They (even the women) still support a patriarchy.
2) He wants to tell women what they can do with their bodies.
3) He tells transgender people that if they do certain things to their bodies that they can't be in the military.
4) He wants to tell people that only a penis going into a vagina is acceptable. "Christians" sure care a lot about where adult people's genitalia go and what people do with their own genitalia (this of course refers only to adults with adults; outrage with anything of this nature involving children is warranted).
It's too bad that more Christians aren't like Fat Hurts. Those that still support Trump give Christians a bad name and WILL result in Christianity shrinking and shrinking in the US. Not saying that is good or bad, only that it is, and Christians have no one to blame but themselves.
jesseriley wrote:
Healthcare for all & a realistic minimum wage will get votes. Plus Bernie or a get-the-vote-out VP. Kaine was a nobody! Not one person outside his family was excited about him!
LOL!! The platform for the libs in 2020:
"Vote for me, I can give you the most free?"
FAIL
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
jesseriley wrote:
Healthcare for all & a realistic minimum wage will get votes. Plus Bernie or a get-the-vote-out VP. Kaine was a nobody! Not one person outside his family was excited about him!
LOL!! The platform for the libs in 2020:
"Vote for me, I can give you the most free?"
FAIL
this dynamic is so nuts -
when repubs give huge amounts of cash to businesses and rich people and tell them 'vote for me, I can give you the most free s&^%,'
then people like rigged here don't complain.
agip wrote:
What? Wait.... wrote:
Won't this just mobilize the racists that elected Trump? And mobilize them even more?
I think there would be far more african american votes for Dems gained by a black person on the ticket....than white votes gained by trump.
it's really about A-A turnout in Prez elections. If they show, like they showed for Obama, the dems win. if they don't show, the Rs win.
The Rs understand this much better than the Dems - that's why they are working so hard to suppress african american votes. It's a matter of survival for them. White Dems don't quite understand this.
A-As only make up
agip wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
LOL!! The platform for the libs in 2020:
"Vote for me, I can give you the most free?"
FAIL
this dynamic is so nuts -
when repubs give huge amounts of cash to businesses and rich people and tell them 'vote for me, I can give you the most free s&^%,'
then people like rigged here don't complain.
Somehow giving it to businesses and rich people is considered wrong?????
>>>>> wrote:
agip wrote:
this dynamic is so nuts -
when repubs give huge amounts of cash to businesses and rich people and tell them 'vote for me, I can give you the most free s&^%,'
then people like rigged here don't complain.
Somehow giving it to businesses and rich people is considered wrong?????
I can easily argue that the tax paying public who fund those entitlements earned the “free” ? much more than rich people and businesses who take every opportunity to cut corners on the back of society. Yes, the rich and corporations suck on the tit of society much more than the average mouth breather.
But but but wrote:
agip wrote:
I think there would be far more african american votes for Dems gained by a black person on the ticket....than white votes gained by trump.
it's really about A-A turnout in Prez elections. If they show, like they showed for Obama, the dems win. if they don't show, the Rs win.
The Rs understand this much better than the Dems - that's why they are working so hard to suppress african american votes. It's a matter of survival for them. White Dems don't quite understand this.
A-As only make up
you can't use less than or greater than symbols on this crate of a website.
but here. Although I have seen different analyses, which basically say 'blacks turned out ok in 2016, but turnip was able to get way more white votes than romney or McCain, so he won.
"But if there was one area where Democratic turnout was undeniably weaker in 2016 than 2012, it was among African-Americans — and this is borne out in my own analysis of the 2016 voter files, which consisted of comparing actual 2016 turnout to pre-election modeled turnout expectations. While most of the conversation around electoral demographics has focused on the growing Latino population, African-Americans are still the most electorally influential nonwhite group because they make up a larger share of the voting population both in the U.S. overall and in swing states in particular. And for Democrats, the influence of black voters is further amplified because, as a group, they vote for Democratic candidates by such large margins. Clinton won about 66 percent of Latino voters, compared to Trump’s 28 percent; she won African-American voters 89 percent to 8 percent. Turnout among Latino voters is rising, and this is good news for Democrats, especially as African-American turnout has fallen. But the difference in the margins by which these two groups lean Democratic means Democrats need to work twice as hard to net the same number of votes from the Latino community as they could from the African-American community.
We saw last year how lower engagement among African-American voters is a serious problem for the Democrats, as black turnout declined nearly uniformly across all the swing states in 2016:"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/black-voters-arent-turning-out-for-the-post-obama-democratic-party/Trollminator wrote:
>>>>> wrote:
Somehow giving it to businesses and rich people is considered wrong?????
I can easily argue that the tax paying public who fund those entitlements earned the “free” ? much more than rich people and businesses who take every opportunity to cut corners on the back of society. Yes, the rich and corporations suck on the tit of society much more than the average mouth breather.
The US collected record tax revenues. However, we have a spending problem. Until both parties admit that entitlements are out of control, the deficit will continue to rise.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/deficit-tax-revenues-cbo-report