|
axeil posted:I think this is the key insight for 2020. You have tons of candidates all saying very similar things policy-wise but there is a massive, massive credibility gap. Bernie will absolutely go for the stuff he's saying even if the implementation is a disaster/he doesn't understand the nuance/other wonky criticisms. I am still fairly skeptical of Bernie as an administrator but because he's so clear and resolute in what he wants, he's near the top of my rankings. I know he's not going to screw us over with a bait-and-switch. what about gillibrand  For the people who say "I find her less credible than Sanders", sure, fine, but ten years is a pretty reasonable chunk of time and I feel like she's at the very least got significantly and meaningfully more left cred than Booker/Biden/Harris. and now i'm wanting her to get on board with the baby-steps-towards-socialism "put workers on boards" thing since apparently that's not completely pie in the sky
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:31
|
|
" people to "gently caress it, implement it now and soak the rich later". The more time people like Harris, Booker, Biden, etc. spend making these highly intricate plans (that no one believes they'd really fight for) and the less time they spend allaying people's fears about inauthenticitiy the more time the Bernie/Warrens of the race have time to build things up.
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:"There's no difference between the candidates, Bernie and Kamala will govern the exact same way" was the gist of his argument, if you actually believe that then you're just as stupid as a noted troll and idiot. I'm not going to continue to fight about what some other poster said, and whether he really meant X when he said Y, or whatever you and Vital want to go on about. Very cool of you to ignore literally everything I've posted just to shout insults. The party is farther left that it's been in generations. The right flank of the party is closer to the left flank than it's been in generations. Yes, President Harris is a different outcome than President Sanders and that difference is meaningful. That difference is also smaller than the difference between left flank candidates in the past and right flank candidates in the past. This development is overall a good thing. If you want to fight about that, go ahead, but I'm done responding to "no but what LT really really really meant was ...."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:The party is farther left that it's been in generations. I know this sounds impressive in a vacuum and in any other context I would be genuinely happy about it, but considering that most of the East Coast is going to be underwater in 30 years, I am less than enthused if Bernie represents the farthest left point in American national politics right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:As for Medicare for All, I was under the impression there was an actual bill that has been written, proposed, and endorsed in the Senate, is there not? Paracaidas posted:Booker, Harris, Warren, and Gillibrand all cosponsored the Sanders Medicare for All bill---but it's worth noting that there are no meaningful stakes to doing so when there is zero chance that bill goes anywhere at all. Sure, there's a bill, but it's also the case that a bunch of people running on M4A in the House are being intentionally hazy about their definition. I think it's definitely the case that we don't have a great sense of what Booker, Harris, Gillibrand and the like have as their, I don't know, "minimal acceptable definition of medicare for all". You can imagine a public option being described as "medicare [buy-in] for all", and I don't think it's the case that anyone co-sponsoring that bill is considering themselves wedded to every particular of a bill they didn't write.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:what about gillibrand I'm still Silly For Gillytm. The "all companies must have 40% of their board seats represented by workers" is an amazingly cunning plan, but I'm not sure it'd do all that much to actually make things better for labor. I give myself an 80% chance of picking either Warren, Gillibrand or Bernie as they seem to be in the "left" group of candidates. Lightning Knight posted:I know this sounds impressive in a vacuum and in any other context I would be genuinely happy about it, but considering that most of the East Coast is going to be underwater in 30 years, I am less than enthused if Bernie represents the farthest left point in American national politics right now. This is another good point. It's probably bad politics that I doubt anyone will say but I really want to vote for whoever has a "all fossil fuels are banned the second I am inaugurated" plan because we are out of time to dick around on climate change. It's already here and it's only going to get worse. I would like my children to have a planet to live on and not a real-life version of Tattooine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I don't know that holding someone to the strictest possible reading of their post is something we want to do. People use hyperbole and overstate things all the time, and "not all the policy positions on this list (or parenthetical supporting evidence) were held for exactly 30 years" seems pretty thin to me, especially given that the list was obviously meant to be a mirror of the kinds of posts people make about bad positions others candidates have held in order to dismiss them. In general we should not hold people to the strictest possible interpretation of their posts, no, but we should not reinterpret their posts to move the goalposts on their behalf either. In this case the "strict" interpretation was the only interpretation, because the whole point of the post was that Bernie had a long record of supporting X Y and Z, then flip-flopped recently. He was called out on this (the A+ rating was not a long-held nor a recently abandoned position, it changed between 1990 and 1992, and was based on a single vote on a single bill, and seemed to say more about the NRA being dumb than about Sanders' agenda) and instead of saying "oh yeah strike that" he doubled down in bad faith, moving the goalposts to "he did a thing one time ever, before his consistent decades-long record of not doing that thing" Hellblazer187 posted:I'm not going to continue to fight about what some other poster said, and whether he really meant X when he said Y Good because this is an absolutely baffling extreme of dying on some pointless hill to save face, since you asked him "Is VitalSigns right that you meant X" and he said "Yes he is right that I meant X" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
My take on at least some of the Johnny Come Lately's to the left is that most of them have probably always supported relatively far left ideas but have been afraid to admit it for political reasons. This is completely unsubstantiated conjecture, but it's exactly as much unsubstantiated conjecture as "yeah but they don't really believe it at all." I trust the consistent lefties more as well, but I'm not writing off people who have seen the light more recently. The only one I don't trust at all is Booker (but he'd still have my GE vote).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Has anyone actually done the work to compile what "Medicare for all" means to different potential candidates - or at least all the things M4A might mean? quote:High-profile Democrats, including several likely to make a bid for the White House in 2020, are signing on to the various Medicare-for-all bills being introduced in Congress. Unsurprisingly, Sanders (I-Vt.) has the most ambitious version, which would essentially turn Medicare into America's national health-care system. Possible presidential hopefuls, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y), Cory Booker (N.J.) and Kamala Harris (Calif.), have signed on as co-sponsors. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.e15de3671a04 Signing onto Bernie's bill is the gold standard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.e15de3671a04 holy poo poo that MedicareX thing sounds like garbage that the GOP will smother in the crib when they inevitably take the House in 2022. Anyone signing on to that as the plan is utterly naive. Whatever the M4A that happens, it needs to be completely immune from the GOP/conservative Dems loving with it. That's another thing I want to hear more about : what are the candidates going to do about voter reform/ensuring the Republicans are never able to hold power again? Because if say, Gillibrand has a better plan for locking the GOP out of power for the rest of our lives, I'm voting for her even if her M4A proposal isn't as good as Bernie's. We can't keep only having these 2 year windows to improve the country and holding the wolves from the door for another 6.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
Sadly I don't think any of them have a "turbofuck the GOP" platform yet. But I agree it's actually the most important possible thing. I'm hoping Harris goes there because it's the only way to turn her background as a prosecutor into a positive. "I will prosecute the crimes of the prior administration" seals my primary vote instantly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Sadly I don't think any of them have a "turbofuck the GOP" platform yet. But I agree it's actually the most important possible thing. I'm hoping Harris goes there because it's the only way to turn her background as a prosecutor into a positive. "I will prosecute the crimes of the prior administration" seals my primary vote instantly. My list 1. Prosecute everyone from Trump's Administration 2. Voting Rights Act 2: Everyone is under pre-clearance now 3. Immediate admission of PR + DC + all other US territories as states 4. Federal ban on partisan gerrymandering 4a. If impossible, gerrymander in favor of the Dems 5. #PacktheCourt 5.a. If 5 fails, tell SCOTUS to gently caress off and stop listening to it 6. Double the size of the House 7. Somehow come up with a way that avoids a constitutional amendment to neuter the Senate into something like the UK's House of Lords 8. Ranked choice ballot? (at this point we're well into pipe dream mode)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Are there really no younger Bernies in the Dem ranks? Is it basically him and Pow-wow Chow Warren and then just generations of Clintonian triangulators? For almost three decades conventional party policy has been along the lines of "we gotta get more donors"--friendly to business interests/the MIC; pro-tax-cuts; no legislation that threatens the corporate profits of finance, insurance, etc. The party, in turn, groomed & financed candidates who didn't threaten these tenets, then touted them as "diverse" or "distinguished veterans" so no one would pay attention to actual policy. I see it nothing short of remarkable that Bernie's candidacy has had the effect of electing Dems who aren't afraid to support his positions. No, they didn't win every primary--especially when establishment elected Dems and their organizations put their thumbs on the scale in favor of candidates they supported--but they were able to oust incumbents in a few races, and showcase the up-and-coming pols like Ocasio-Cortez and Lee Carter. I'm a bit baffled why liberal voters and establishment Dems think that it will take several decades of incrementalism when it comes to enacting things Americans overwhelmingly support, like M4A, but are the first to jump up and point out that Bernie's crew hasn't managed to take over the party and its institutional might in 2-3 years since he ran for president. So yes, there are younger Bernie Dems who (eventually) will make terrific candidates and support Bernie-like policies as they come up through the ranks. Until then, we've got Sweaty Grandpa as our standard-bearer for progressive policy and our voice in politics. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
axeil posted:holy poo poo that MedicareX thing sounds like garbage that the GOP will smother in the crib when they inevitably take the House in 2022. Anyone signing on to that as the plan is utterly naive. Whatever the M4A that happens, it needs to be completely immune from the GOP/conservative Dems loving with it. Essentially a Democrat who does not run on Medicare for All will not beat Trump. Democratic candidates have zeroed in on health care being the issue in 2018 and going forward. Voters of every sort want health care and a social safety net, and Republicans are finding it impossible to counter on this issue, so much so that they are pretending they don't hate coverage for pre-existing conditions. Voters meanwhile do not want Clinton disciples who vacuously preach balance in all things. Election reform is a big problem but it seems unlikely anyone will make it a major platform piece. Democrats have to get their poo poo together first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
axeil posted:My list A big enough congressional majority makes all of that possible except 7. There needs to be another way to gently caress the senate. Split CA and somehow mash together a bunch of crap states to make Idawykodaska, I guess, although that's probably impossible as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Election reform is a big problem but it seems unlikely anyone will make it a major platform piece. Democrats have to get their poo poo together first. This worries me, because there is always a backlash and if we don't protect ourselves against it we get well...*gestures at hellworld*. And it's worrying because with climate change we don't really have any more second chances left. We need to never take a step back again on it or literally everyone on the planet is going to die. Hellblazer187 posted:A big enough congressional majority makes all of that possible except 7. There needs to be another way to gently caress the senate. Split CA and somehow mash together a bunch of crap states to make Idawykodaska, I guess, although that's probably impossible as well. You can't merge states without their consent so that's probably a non-starter. I'd be interesting in trying to figure out if there was any way to get rid of the Senate without a constitutional amendment. Right now the only thing I can think is that there's a soft coup and the President/House both agree that the Senate no longer gets to vote on things and proceeds without them but that'll spark a constitutional crisis and SCOTUS would be a casualty because there's no way they wouldn't step in on the side of the Senate as stepping around them is blatantly unconstitutional. Sparking a constitutional crisis on purpose in the first few months of your administration is probably a bad idea. axeil fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
axeil posted:holy poo poo that MedicareX thing sounds like garbage that the GOP will smother in the crib when they inevitably take the House in 2022. Anyone signing on to that as the plan is utterly naive. Whatever the M4A that happens, it needs to be completely immune from the GOP/conservative Dems loving with it. So I guess I would say that they probably can't destroy it just with the House (just as they were unable to destroy PPACA with just the House in 2013 despite shutting down the government over it). But like PPACA there will inevitably be things that need to be fixed or drafting oversights that allow funding to be hosed with (like some of PPACA's insurer-side subsidies that were mistakenly part of the discretionary budget which could be killed by omitting them instead of being mandatory spending that can't be cut without an affirmative repeal bill), and holy poo poo how did we not learn this lesson from PPACA that if programs aren't universal they can and will be sabotaged because no law is perfectly drafted and divide-and-conquer works. The first thing Republicans will do is gently caress with MedicareX, then say that government doesn't work, and even if the districts that rely on MedicareX figure it out and elect Democrats, a ton of districts will have voter majorities that don't care or are actively gleeful that the poor are getting screwed. axeil posted:Because if say, Gillibrand has a better plan for locking the GOP out of power for the rest of our lives, I'm voting for her even if her M4A proposal isn't as good as Bernie's. We can't keep only having these 2 year windows to improve the country and holding the wolves from the door for another 6. Even Pelosi is saying we need to do this now, which is good. My big problem with trusting a  Democrat is even if they have the best plan ever to roll back voter suppression, admit new states, increase the size of the house, implement ranked-choice or proportional representation, etc etc etc, the GOP knows that's the end of them and they will filibuster it. So unless they're saying they intend to nuke the filibuster if necessary to implement electoral reforms and protect our democracy, then it's worthless.E: Hellblazer187 posted:A big enough congressional majority makes all of that possible except 7. There needs to be another way to gently caress the senate. Split CA and somehow mash together a bunch of crap states to make Idawykodaska, I guess, although that's probably impossible as well. US Constitution Article IV Section 3 posted:no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So I guess I would say that they probably can't destroy it just with the House (just as they were unable to destroy PPACA with just the House in 2013 despite shutting down the government over it). But like PPACA there will inevitably be things that need to be fixed or drafting oversights that allow funding to be hosed with (like some of PPACA's insurer-side subsidies that were mistakenly part of the discretionary budget which could be killed by omitting them instead of being mandatory spending that can't be cut without an affirmative repeal bill), and holy poo poo how did we not learn this lesson from PPACA that if programs aren't universal they can and will be sabotaged because no law is perfectly drafted and divide-and-conquer works. The thing is, I think after 2022 the GOP has the Senate basically forever because of the shifting of demographics in this country with rural areas being 100% for the GOP. Even if the Dems keep the House, you'd only need to slip up once for everything to be undone. I really, really worry about the fate of the Republic in the medium term because of how gerrymandered the Senate is gonna get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
axeil posted:I really, really worry about the fate of the Republic in the medium term because of how gerrymandered the Senate is gonna get. They'll hash out the problems with the Senate around the time the Capitol building becomes beachfront property.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
axeil posted:This worries me, because there is always a backlash and if we don't protect ourselves against it we get well...*gestures at hellworld*. You're not wrong, but it's possible with demographic change this would be less of an issue. The 2016 map if restricted to voters under 35 is a hillarious sea of blue. The electorate gets more and more like that every year. Not something to take for granted but at least like, maybe it saves us. axeil posted:You can't merge states without their consent so that's probably a non-starter. What about passing a bill that says every resident of Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska get $10,000 cash tax free if the states merge. Literally buy them off. Total expenditure about 40 billion, saves the country. Edit: Oh lol you need the legislatures? That's even easier. Pay them $1m each from the federal treasury.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
axeil posted:This worries me, because there is always a backlash and if we don't protect ourselves against it we get well...*gestures at hellworld*. we're getting hellworld no matter what. at this point it's a question of a long term survivable hellworld or not
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
axeil posted:The thing is, I think after 2022 the GOP has the Senate basically forever because of the shifting of demographics in this country with rural areas being 100% for the GOP. Even if the Dems keep the House, you'd only need to slip up once for everything to be undone. If the Democrats continue along their strategy of shifting from the party of the working poor and civil rights to the party of affluent graduate-degreed professionals and unenthusiastic racial/sexual minorities with no place to go, then I agree it's hopeless, but liberal Democrats have been the party of blue collar workers and rural farmers and civil rights before and could be again (and no I'm not talking about bringing back the Dixiecrats: Senator George "Amnesty, Abortion, and Acid" McGovern was from South Dakota) Amending the Senate into a powerless rubberstamp body is already impossible under your assumptions because it requires 3/4 of the states to agree and you're assuming we've already passed the point where can't even get 1/2 the states to support Democratic control of the chamber so we're done for once the current blue dogs cycle out. And amending the Senate out of the Constitution entirely requires the consent of every single state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Edit: Oh lol you need the legislatures? That's even easier. Pay them $1m each from the federal treasury. Corporations will offer them more to say no, if the Senate goes, polluters are turbofucked It would probably actually be easier to bribe the people of those states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
axeil posted:This worries me, because there is always a backlash and if we don't protect ourselves against it we get well...*gestures at hellworld*. The "backlash" happens because the Democrats have a long and storied history of taking a huge poo poo on their base the moment they get into power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
axeil posted:The thing is, I think after 2022 the GOP has the Senate basically forever because of the shifting of demographics in this country with rural areas being 100% for the GOP. Even if the Dems keep the House, you'd only need to slip up once for everything to be undone. Has the Senate been getting redder though? Don't get me wrong, I'm more or less on board with the "30% of the country shouldn't have 70% of the senators, abolish the senate, guillotine the rurals", but I'm not actually convinced the Senate situation is going to get worse so much as not get better when it should. also it's easier to make the Senate have fewer responsibilities than it is to actually abolish it
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Has the Senate been getting redder though? Don't get me wrong, I'm more or less on board with the "30% of the country shouldn't have 70% of the senators, abolish the senate, guillotine the rurals", but I'm not actually convinced the Senate situation is going to get worse so much as not get better when it should.  quote:Consider: In 1980, there were 18 states where the presidential margin was at least 5 points more Democratic than the national result, 18 states where it was at least 5 points more Republican than the national result and 14 states in between. Hypothetically, over three successive election cycles, all either party needed to do to win a Senate majority was win all 36 of the seats in the friendly states plus at least 15 of the 28 swing-state seats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
hm okay my eyeballing says it's not that much (reliably) worse than in the 70s but it's not an encouraging sign (and a percent or three worse is still pretty fuckin' dramatic in terms of real world outcomes)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
That plot is boomer_cultural_anxiety.jpg Even red states want big government, when you poll people there you find that they want big government liberalism but that's overridden by dumbshit culture war grievances about "press 1 for English" and sluts getting abortions and trans people going to the bathroom and guns to shoot all the aforementioned foreigners and sluts and queers What we also see is that people who didn't grow up in the 50s and 60s don't care nearly as much about their parents' and grandparents' grievance politics but they do want the New Deal back. And the latter are aging into voting blocs while the former are dying out. The biggest danger to control of the Senate isn't rural domination, but Democrats deciding to write off everything outside of major cities. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Nov 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That plot is boomer_cultural_anxiety.jpg Pretty much. Young white people in the sticks don't want to be hosed by their bosses or really hate minorities - they want people with awesome lives on the coasts to stop rubbing it in their faces. The older generations in the sticks are pretty much unreachable, but a second New Deal would have broad support from youngish whites in the sticks and the traditional Democratic multiracial coalition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess actually convincing the mid west to vote for us would be better than just ratfucking them out of representation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 01:49
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:The party is farther left that it's been in generations. The right flank of the party is closer to the left flank than it's been in generations. Yes, President Harris is a different outcome than President Sanders and that difference is meaningful. That difference is also smaller than the difference between left flank candidates in the past and right flank candidates in the past. This development is overall a good thing. To the left, this is basically like if chattel slavery existed and a political party had made a shift towards giving slaves a path to non-slavery and more strictly enforced laws related to the treatment of slaves, and then people started proudly talking about the progress being made. This analogy likely sounds very extreme to you, but I think it's useful to get some idea of why many on the left find opinions like the one you're expressing here bizarre. Basically, to us, the current state of the country/world is one of utterly grotesque inequality, where millions (or billions if you're talking about the whole world) suffer and even die while a tiny minority hordes the vast majority of wealth/assets. And that's not even getting into things like the urgency of addressing global warming, or the impacts of bigotry (which is also barely addressed - our nation is still just as heavily segregated as it was years ago). So it comes off as strange when people say "why can't you just be happy with this progress?" (this is basically what you're doing here), since even the sort of reforms being discussed here would just put a small dent in a still fundamentally unjust status quo. Hellblazer187 posted:My take on at least some of the Johnny Come Lately's to the left is that most of them have probably always supported relatively far left ideas but have been afraid to admit it for political reasons. This is completely unsubstantiated conjecture, but it's exactly as much unsubstantiated conjecture as "yeah but they don't really believe it at all." This is bizarre to the extent that I'm not even sure how to address it. There is no rational reason to think that people in positions of power, political, or otherwise, in our nation secretly have left-wing beliefs, and many, many reasons to believe they feel the opposite. The default assumption, based off history, should obviously be that they aren't secretly left-wing, because that has never been the case for the overwhelming majority of US politicians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
The President of the Unites States is not an administrator, and hiring a wonk to the position is the dumbest loving possible thing. The President is a leader who sets agendas and acts as a figurehead and focal point for the public imagination. A President should have the vision to say 'Lets do X' and then get the people on board with X and use a combination of public sentiment and personal power to pummel the legislature into compliance with X. Then you hire a bunch of wonks to hash out the details of X. Wonks are interchangeable drones that you hire and fire according to the project needs, not people who should ever be in charge of anything. Especially not the federal government, where no one ever seriously asks 'but how will we pay for it?' when it comes to poo poo like dropping bombs on brown people for no good goddamn reason. Paying for poo poo and balancing budgets is a dodge to get out of ever having to do anything for the people. The Feds can poof money into existence, but only ever seem to care about poofing money to murder brown children who did nothing wrong except live in a country on the terror list or funneling trillions into a financial system that shot off its own dick. "How will we pay for it?" is the most disingenuous question of all time, and the fact that wonks can't stop asking it is proof that no wonk should ever be allowed anywhere near a leadership role. In short, wonks should be locked away in backrooms slaving over a policy brief, not trying to lead the country with some dumb thirty page plan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
ChipNDip posted:Pretty much. Young white people in the sticks don't want to be hosed by their bosses or really hate minorities - they want people with awesome lives on the coasts to stop rubbing it in their faces. The older generations in the sticks are pretty much unreachable, but a second New Deal would have broad support from youngish whites in the sticks and the traditional Democratic multiracial coalition. Yeah, that pretty much defines my hatred of city people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 12:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/larafriedmandc/status/1058358977166299136?s=21
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
How is Harris looking?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Still a cop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:How is Harris looking? Oh Snapple! posted:Still a cop. i'm more forgiving of it'd take some real weirdness for her to exceed Bernie, Warren, or Gillibrand in my eyes, never mind potential lesser-known candidates
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:How is Harris looking? She proposed a not-horrible mincome proposal the other day but it's still means tested and employment-tested so, not a mincome
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Hopefully Bernie still decides to run; it's just that Warren doesn't strike me as winning against Trump, and Gillibrand doesn't want to run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:She proposed a not-horrible mincome proposal the other day but it's still means tested and employment-tested so, not a mincome yea Harris is painfully slow to realize what the actual good policies are yet she's also the only mainstream dem who's even trying. It's incredibly frustrating and I hate that I'm probably gonna wind up voting for her in the general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1058350907165937664
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 19:17
|
|
