|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Klansman |
|
8 | 0.91% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
578 | 65.76% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
185 | 21.05% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
4 | 0.46% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
0 | 0% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
3 | 0.34% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
3 | 0.34% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
2 | 0.23% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
4 | 0.46% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
19 | 2.16% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
19 | 2.16% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
8 | 0.91% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.11% |
| Just like in real life, nobody voted for Hickenlooper |
|
2 | 0.23% |
| Jeffrey Epstein, the MCC Most Hated |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| KKKillary KKKlinton |
|
16 | 1.82% |
| Some other idiot not in this list |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| Total: | 879 votes | ||
|
Anyone watching this climate town hall thing? Watching Joe Biden get caught in a bold faced lie about taking oil money made my night.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Anyone watching this climate town hall thing? Watching Joe Biden get caught in a bold faced lie about taking oil money made my night. That and watching his eye literally explode on TV. My goodness, he's a mess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:22
|
|
|
Warren's endless plans spell endless trouble. Biden however is wearing out like a 15 year old pt cruiser.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Elizabeet Warrem: I have a plan, the climate change guy’s plan
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
User0015 posted:Besides the VAT, he's mentioned capital gains and carried interest taxes. He also has taxes on market trades, which I assume is pretty much bernie's plan of taxing high-frequency trading. I think it's more an issue that all of these taxes he could levy on people will just be circumvented in some way. Part of the reason a VAT is on the table among any other taxation method is specifically because avoiding VAT is near impossible, which is precisely what most of these businesses have been doing for so long already. Why do you have to 'think' and 'assume' so much? I don't have to assume anything about Bernie's plans because I can go read them and know exactly what he is proposing. If we have to assume and conjecture and suppose and wish all the time to fill in the blanks, are we really reacting to what the candidate is saying or are we reacting to what we want a candidate to say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:31
|
|
|
not watching because I don't want to, but saw someone mention 1) Bernie again poo poo on nuclear 2) Bernie thinks literally everything can be passed in a single reconciliation bill? please tell me I was told wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
I also assume Yang's plan is pretty much Bernie's. But like, supported by racists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
Pander posted:not watching because I don't want to, but saw someone mention Kind of, but so did Warren, and none of the candidates have been pro-nuclear, unfortunately. Talk is cheap, any GND policy is going to have to involve nuclear, etc etc. quote:2) Bernie thinks literally everything can be passed in a single reconciliation bill? I don't remember exactly what this was in reference to, but I doubt he meant to say that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
You can do anything you want in reconciliation if you have a 51-seat majority. E: Yes there are rules saying you can't, but you can change those at any time with a simple majority vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
Ranter posted:Those private businesses must have an IT system to connect back to the IRS in real time. Hes saying all such problems eith vat could be solved with tech but the government must impose and pay for it. lol let me guess he's a big fan of the singularity. Computers aren't magic but it's pretty clear this guy is enamored with big data or something so you won't talk him out of his fantasy world where the government, presumably in less than ten years, creates a singular reporting system that ties in every business nationwide and tracks millions of purchases in real-time. And of course the obvious problems: I'm poor so I paid in cash and I don't have a fixed address or bank account. Where's my refund? Or I'm a teenager who just bought something with money I earned. Does the refund go to me or my parents? How do you decide and how do you track the info needed to make that decision? Or I get the refund, but then I return the item I bought. So now to make sure I'm refunded the correct amount the system has to go both ways and the store is now either holding onto or has immediate access to the tax and banking data of thousands or even millions of people. And these are just off the top of my head, you'd have a million more such issues in a real use case. Anyways VAT and similar programs are complicated and regressive so let's just tax the rich a modest amount. They have more money than they know what to do with anyways and taxing them doesn't require complicated refund schemes since, even in scenarios where we're taxing them at rates of 70% or above, the amount of money taken has zero material impact on their daily lives. Pander posted:not watching because I don't want to, but saw someone mention There's a bunch of decorum around what can or can't be put into a reconciliation bill so Bernie intends to instruct his VP to ignore those not-really-rules and just do whatevs in reconciliation. In other words VitalSigns posted:there are rules saying you can't, but you can change those at any time with a simple majority vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
Pander posted:not watching because I don't want to, but saw someone mention Are you a single issue nuclear voter?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Lots of poor folks don't have fixed addresses and it's ridiculous to think that kind of itemized regular recompense is possible. You'd lose more in admin costs than you'd gain. Pretty easy to just deposit their money into their free Post Office Bank Account. The account even comes with a Federal photo ID. Pander posted:not watching because I don't want to, but saw someone mention Bernie seems to have come to the compromise of keeping the filibuster but declaring annual full court Calvin Ball for the Reconciliation Bill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:There's a bunch of decorum around what can or can't be put into a reconciliation bill so Bernie intends to instruct his VP to ignore those not-really-rules and just do whatevs in reconciliation. In other words Its not just "decorum" (which I know is a bad word around here). Its law. Youd have to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bans using reconciliation to pass matters extraneous to the budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Are you a single issue nuclear voter? No. Any other stupid questions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
Gyges posted:
Just read up on this and it seems insanely dumb? Like what are the advantages of keeping the filibuster around? This means that best case scenario Bernie would only get two bills before mid terms which is maybe not the best idea if you have a sweeping, ambitious legislative agenda like Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
Sinistral posted:Just read up on this and it seems insanely dumb? Like what are the advantages of keeping the filibuster around? This means that best case scenario Bernie would only get two bills before mid terms which is maybe not the best idea if you have a sweeping, ambitious legislative agenda like Bernie. bernie has decorum poisoning. he probably watched too much west wing
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
Sinistral posted:Just read up on this and it seems insanely dumb? Like what are the advantages of keeping the filibuster around? This means that best case scenario Bernie would only get two bills before mid terms which is maybe not the best idea if you have a sweeping, ambitious legislative agenda like Bernie. you just don't understand the practicalities involved here bernie is an experienced senator and understands that abolishing the filibuster both is unrealistic and would distress moderate Democrats, whose votes we need
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That and watching his eye literally explode on TV. My goodness, he's a mess. Pkease send links to these things
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
Seeing how the president can't control the filibuster it is wiser to plan for a world where Schumer prevents the removal of the filibuster and instead focus on real policy that impacts people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
I'm a Bernie guy, but he needs to loving nut up and just say, "we're getting rid of the filibuster."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Its not just "decorum" (which I know is a bad word around here). Its law. Youd have to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bans using reconciliation to pass matters extraneous to the budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:48
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Its not just "decorum" (which I know is a bad word around here). Its law. Youd have to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bans using reconciliation to pass matters extraneous to the budget. What do you call it when a bill passes both houses of congress and is signed by the president
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:you just don't understand the practicalities involved here Yes better we should put no money into our climate plans because we should ~spend smarter not harder~ like a good
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
Sinistral posted:Just read up on this and it seems insanely dumb? Like what are the advantages of keeping the filibuster around? This means that best case scenario Bernie would only get two bills before mid terms which is maybe not the best idea if you have a sweeping, ambitious legislative agenda like Bernie. There's nothing that stops you from passing as many reconciliation bills as you want, if you have 51 votes to overrule the parliamentarian. imo the advantage is that if you say "I'll kill the filibuster" the media will screech and wail about civility and whatnot. But if you do effectively the same thing by changing the rules around reconciliation, it's sufficiently arcane that they'd have to do some kind of 50-part explainer that no one will listen to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
beto has serious coke energy
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:Pkease send links to these things https://twitter.com/nerdjpg/status/1169404773499572224
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There's nothing that stops you from passing as many reconciliation bills as you want, if you have 51 votes to overrule the parliamentarian. The VP can unilaterally overrule the parliamentarian and that's what Bernie has said he will instruct his VP to do. I think it's simpler to just kill the filibuster but Bernie's plan seems to be legal if a bit roundabout. He'll introduce stuff via reconciliation, Senators will object, the parliamentarian will agree with the objection, and the VP will tell the parliamentarian to pound sand, and voila, an M4A bill that only needs 50+1 votes to become law. If anyone wasn't already aware the rules governing the Senate are really loving stupid, and on some level I do enjoy Bernie employing an esoteric, never used rule that clearly demonstrates just how stupid it is. Wicked Them Beats fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:The VP can unilaterally overrule the parliamentarian and that's what Bernie has said he will instruct his VP to do. I'm pretty sure the senator who was ruled against can call for a vote so you do need 51 votes to make it stick Wicked Them Beats posted:I think it's simpler to just kill the filibuster but Bernie's plan seems to be legal if a bit roundabout. He'll introduce stuff via reconciliation, Senators will object, the parliamentarian will agree with the objection, and the VP will tell the parliamentarian to pound sand, and voila, an M4A bill that only needs 50+1 votes to become law. I don't think it's any simpler, it's the exact same procedure. I think it's brilliant because it avoids all the hand-wringing about the filibuster tradition. And while trying to look this up I accidentally found that the limit of one reconciliation bill per year isn't in the Byrd Rule, it was invented in 1995 by the (GOP) parliamentarian who interpreted the rule that way, much to Trent Lott's displeasure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:The VP can unilaterally overrule the parliamentarian and that's what Bernie has said he will instruct his VP to do. I really see zero benefit of that over rewriting the rules for the filibuster. Like you don't even need to kill the filibuster, you just force it to go back to the old talking filibuster and then it goes back to being a mechanism to temporarily stall a vote, as opposed to a method to permanently prevent it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Yes better we should put no money into our climate plans because we should ~spend smarter not harder~ like a good People like him aren't actually honestly comparing the candidates; they're looking for excuses to justify their choice of Warren and opportunities to snipe at people who support Sanders (while avoiding any direct discussion of their choice). Their strategy seems to be to avoid evaluating the candidates as a whole and instead do a gish gallop of individual anti-Sanders/pro-Warren talking points. The Glumslinger posted:I really see zero benefit of that over rewriting the rules for the filibuster. Like you don't even need to kill the filibuster, you just force it to go back to the old talking filibuster and then it goes back to being a mechanism to temporarily stall a vote, as opposed to a method to permanently prevent it. I don't believe the President has control over this. While Sanders should still at least voice support for the idea of eliminating the filibuster, his idea actually seems more plausible as something he can accomplish as president.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:I really see zero benefit of that over rewriting the rules for the filibuster. Like you don't even need to kill the filibuster, you just force it to go back to the old talking filibuster and then it goes back to being a mechanism to temporarily stall a vote, as opposed to a method to permanently prevent it. The benefit is killing the filibuster requires Chuck Schumer to do so and Bernie's workaround just requires the vice president.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:People like him aren't actually honestly comparing the candidates; they're looking for excuses to justify their choice of Warren and opportunities to snipe at people who support Sanders (while avoiding any direct discussion of their choice). Their strategy seems to be to avoid evaluating the candidates as a whole and instead do a gish gallop of individual anti-Sanders/pro-Warren talking points. nah, i'm annoyed that a subset of my fellow sanders supporters will contort themselves at all costs to avoid any possible criticism of sanders that isn't "well, everyone else is worse on this topic, so whatcha gonna do?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
I can’t believe that Biden’s activating his sharingan this early into the primary . Wrap it up, Bernailures!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:nah, i'm annoyed that a subset of my fellow sanders supporters will contort themselves at all costs to avoid any possible criticism of sanders that isn't "well, everyone else is worse on this topic, so whatcha gonna do?" Well, everyone else is substantially worse on this, so whatcha you gonna do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Well, everyone else is substantially worse on this, so whatcha you gonna do? vote for Bernie
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That and watching his eye literally explode on TV. My goodness, he's a mess. wait, it didn't start out looking like that? gohmak fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:nah, i'm annoyed that a subset of my fellow sanders supporters will contort themselves at all costs to avoid any possible criticism of sanders that isn't "well, everyone else is worse on this topic, so whatcha gonna do?" That's where I'm drawing the line, anyway. I suppose some folks already think we're well past it already, and others will continue to hold out some hope even if The Libs Do It Again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Elizabeet Warrem: I have a plan, the climate change guy’s plan to be fair Jay Inslee said his plan was open source, so Inslee is good for that. Anything as comprehensive as his plan is good loving news to use as a policy plank and if you want to tweak to expand on it further, by all means. That was the point. I just don't see how it could integrate in Warren's plans when she ironically will make it more restrictive because the peg won't slide through her weirdly shaped wonked out hole. How, you furtively scrunch your head until it hurts? Public utility ownership for one example out of many in her overly meticulous, methodical plans that is too rigid to adapt and conform to emergent issues. Lastgirl fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
If it hadn't been for Clottin'-Eye Joe/ I'da had healthcare a long time ago Failed Imagineer fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Sep 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
gohmak posted:wait, it didn't start out looking like that? Tough to say, it only became evident when the cams did a closeup. But it was unsightly to say the least. Failed Imagineer posted:If it hadn't been for Clottin'-Eye Joe/ I’ve seen a bunch of these today, but this is probably the best one. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2019 07:58
|
|