|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What twitter or podcast told everyone to say HENERY a bunch all of a sudden anyway? Its not a new thing. Welcome to the Debate and Discussion message board, I hope you enjoy your stay.
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:I thought HENRY was High-Expectations, Not Rich Yet. Nope
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:
To be more specific, its a person or family who earn a fuckton of money every year (generally $200k+) but are whining about how their taxes shouldn't go up because they aren't rich because of reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:What if I'm a higher earner who believes I should pay more taxes? Then obviously, by definition, you are not a HENRY, and we have no problem with you. The issue is rich people trying to explain to us they aren't really rich, and not only do they not need a tax increase, they'd like a tax cut just to help make ends meet because that vacation home is really loving expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Being bothered that your taxes are being raised solely for the sake of providing your boss with a cut makes you a wicked HENRY for whom a quick death is the only true mercy This is both wrong, and a stupid post.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
Bill Shuster (PA-09) announced his retirement. His district has a PVI of R+19 and is 97% white though, so that seat is a reach unless we have a truly epic wave.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Orrin Hatch is retiring, paving the way for Senator Romney. I think I am fine with that. A Dem Senator in Utah is impossible, and Romney would be a mild improvement over Hatch.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:White people voted for that pedophile 70-30 but he passed a lie detector test!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Wait, wasn't that their campaign lawyer? No, even funnier. He was a lawyer defending Roy Moore's son from a drug charge.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Al Franken officially resigned from the Senate today
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Pretty much any other woman in the field would be a better choice than Warren. She is not charismatic on the stump. She's awesome in writing and there's some great clips, but if you look at longer campaign speeches, there are better options. She can probably still beat Trump (we hope), but I'd like to nominate someone who can also win in 2024.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
botany posted:this is pretty ridiculous hyperbole "pretty much any other woman in the field" = Gillibrand, Harris, and Klobuchar. All 3 would be better options. So no, I don't think so.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Her authenticity on Wall Street regulation matters way more than if she doesn't check your boxes in charisma. The only people who know about her authenticity on wall street are political nerds and the hardcore base. The morons in the middle are going to care more about superficial details. She'd probably still beat Trump because thats a special case, but I'm not confident that she can beat a smooth, smiley Republican governor without a lot of baggage making hard votes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Stop trying to win these votes by moderating positions to be more friendly to their stupidity. We need an authentic candidate who is willing to be themselves, and warren is just that. Plus Trump won't be able to stop calling her Pocahontas. I'm not talking about moderating positions. By all means, we should nominate an unapologetic progressive who will go to war against the GOP. Warren is the best on substance, but on style if I had to use one word to describe what its like to listen to a long speech, it would be "unpleasant". Uninformed voters who are freed from the baggage of Trump in 2024 are going to go "I just don't like her". The other women in the field don't have that same problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think your vision of political narratives is incredibly superficial. You're claiming she can beat an incumbent president but would, after serving for 4 years Defeating Trump in 2020 is not going to be difficult for anyone who is currently a serious contender.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Fixed that for you. Defeating Trump ended up being a challenge for the worst candidate the Dems had nominated in the party's entire modern history, the same candidate who was the victim of decades of propaganda. And she still would have won without the Comey letter. I don't get your point. Defeating Trump won't be difficult for any of our current serious contenders.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:We live in a world where 'your friend on facebook' is a key source. Having nerds willing to go to bat for you on social media is really loving important. That is a pretty good point in favor of Warren.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
If I had to bet $100 on predicting who the Dems will nominate for 2020, right now I'd put the money on Gillibrand.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Defeating Trump will be difficult even with the perfect candidate. This idea that Trump is easy to defeat is based on what you want to be true more than reality. He is literally the most hated president after 1 year in the entire modern history of polling. Trump is going to be easy to defeat with any competent candidate without a lot of scandal or baggage.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/948324963068661760
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2018 00:19
|
|