|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
I think in terms of the horse race, the clear winners were Castro and Harris, two campaigns that had been largely ignored and will probably absorb some of the fickle "whoever is in the news right now" support that has at times favored Beto, Buttigieg and Warren. Long term, I think the evidence is clear that the real winner of the last four years is Bernie. We have just had two nights where the vast majority of the policy conversation is over whether people support Bernie's policies or not.
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
I think Williamson is deeply unserious as a candidate and as a person. Which makes it all the more disappointing that she was the only one to directly link the issues around immigration with brutal American policies in Central and South America. If she continues to bring up American policy towards Latin America in discussions over immigration, she will be a net positive for the debates. And if what a no-hope candidate has to say about vaccines troubles you, I hope that what a candidate with an actual chance has to say about foreign policy does too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Dammerung posted:I'm sorry, I didn't realize that he was. I hope things will improve for him soon. Warren's proposal isn't good because it says absolutely nothing about how to actually enforce it in a world where the us allows anonymous trusts and off shore accounts. Bernie's actual sponsored bill that raises the estate tax and creates a tax on transfers of financial instruments is more detailed, practical and realistic.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Again, Warren's wealth tax proposal is absolutely silent on enforcement, especially since the US allows for things like anonymous trusts, and since the bulk of wealth can be easily rerouted through foundations, offshore trusts, and offshore accounts. Bernie's 77% estate tax plus 0.5% tax on transfers of financial instruments is not only much more aggressive in its redistributive aspects, not only much more enforceable, but also much more detailed, since they are bills that Bernie has introduced. This is the thing that drives me up a wall. Virtually all of Bernie's signature proposals have been introduced as bills in the senate. Bernie is likely to be the presidential candidate with the most detailed proposals in history, because they are nearly all actually written as bills in the senate. And yet the media treats Warren as the smart wonk because she throws out a wealth tax bill with numbers that are absolutely meaningless.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because Warren is doing the media's job for them and because we've completely commoditized media labor and media they're stuck at the same capitalism grindstone as the rest of us. So when Warren posts a medium post that means to many reporters "congrats your boss wont yell at you today if you just copy and paste an article in 5 minutes" versus Bernie's senate bills that would demand research and reading and work. I'd say it's simpler than. The person the NY Times has covering the Bernie campaign is the daughter in law of the managing director of Bain Capital. Kasie Hunt is the daughter of the Bruce hunt, who is the head of real estate and construction for Penn Medicine. And on and on. It shouldn't be a shock to anyone that most of the political reporters in Washington are well connected people from wealthy backgrounds. Stuff like this: https://fair.org/home/sidney-embers-secret-sources/ isn't just a consequence of lazy reporting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:the most disheartening thing about the primary is even if sanders wins we're pretty hosed. it's not like he's going to be able to transform our energy system in time to stave off catastrophic climate change. gently caress did they even ask anything about climate in the debates? Even if Bernie is unable to gather congressional support to move an inch on climate change, medicare for all, or income inequality, the president has unilateral power on foreign policy to immediately enact orders that can significantly improve the lives of millions of people around the world. A change of policy on Yemen by itself does that. Which is why foreign policy should be one of the top issues for everyone who cares about human rights that extend beyond American borders.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:You realize that post was saying that Bernie posters in this thread aren't overbearing assholes who are trying to drive everyone out, right? No, they are not. Warren specifically defended the bombing of hospitals and schools and specifically said that the US should not get involved in preventing the expansion of settlements: https://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20140821/news/408210325 quote:“But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,” Warren said, drawing applause. More recently, when the Obama administration in 2016 signaled that it would not veto the resolution calling settlements illegal, a number of senators signed a letter sponsored by AIPAC asking Obama to veto the "one sided" resolution: https://www.aipac.org/-/media/publi...ADDA6B8D8CFA471 Try to spot which senators signed the AIPAC letter and which didn't (Warren signed, Bernie didn't). Hell, let me just put this here: https://forward.com/news/343539/elizabeth-warren-is-the-surprising-israel-hawk-on-hillary-clintons-vice-pre/ quote:Warren would be the natural pick to win over supporters of another progressive Democratic icon — Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The Bernie or Bust crowd, who are still uncomfortable with Clinton, may find Warren’s positions on social and economic issues just as exciting as Sanders’s. And that is without getting into things like North Korea (where Bernie put out a statement praising de-escalation while Warren complained that Trump was being taken advantage of), Iran (where Bernie voted against additional sanctions, while Warren voted for), Trump's military budget increases and so on. It's not an accident that Warren hired Sasha Baker (former deputy chief of staff for the secretary of defense under Obama) and Bernie hired Matt Duss (the guy who got in trouble at CAP for being too critical of Israel). Yes, Warren has gotten better in recent months and joined several of Bernie's resolutions. But I don't particularly trust leftwing conversions on the even of announcing a bid for presidency. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Oh good, I was feeling a bit alone on this. Anyway, I understand where you're coming from, but politicians are always going to be different when placed in different contexts. I don't find it to be an uncross-able red line but more of something you need to take into account. Note that while she has gotten better on supporting Bernie's actions, she has not actually walked back any of her previous support of Israel. And in some areas (Venezuela) she has actually gotten worse. And foreign policy seems a very strange area to just shrug your shoulders, since that is one area where presidents actually have a lot of unilateral power. I am pretty sure that it is impossible to rationalize treating foreign policy as a small detail without coming across as a monster. Which is why so many so called progressives would rather not talk about it at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The main thing about foreign policy is that few of the candidates really expect it to matter, especially this early in the election, so for now all you can do is dig through the past (that Warren clip was from 2014). I expect all of them will be fairly flexible about foreign policy for a while, and yes, I mean all of them. Bernie Sanders has had a few takes like being anti-trade agreements, seeming a bit soft on the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea, and some galaxy brain takes on how Qatar should get involved in military adventurism to fight ISIS. The one biggest thing I liked about Bernie was how I heard that he was against constant bombing campaigns, but here he is in 2015 saying that he'd still do drone strikes as president. On the other side of the coin, here's Warren joining Bernie on a resolution condemning Netanyahu a couple weeks ago. Like it or not, you're not gonna get any clear answers on foreign policy right now. This is nonsense. Trying to compare Bernie saying that he'd do drone strike against an isolated terrorist (and Bernie specifically highlighting the isolated part) to Warren supporting the bombing of hospitals and schools is either disingenuous or ignorant. Bernie is far from perfect, but there is no comparison here. Also the idea that it is too early for it to matter in the campaign and that is why they are all so bad is ridiculous once you realize that every single front runner is either a currently sitting senator or former vice president with very long records. As for Warren, she signed a letter against Obama's abstention at the security council in 2016, voted for the Iran sanctions bundled with Russia stuff in 2017, voted for Trump's increase in the military budget for 2018, and defended sanctions on Venezuela in 2019. The idea that the foreign policy records of the people running are either incomplete, underdeveloped or unknown is ridiculous. Granted, makes about as much sense as preferring someone because they will try to do fewer things, but still ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
Biden is like Clinton in 08, in that their opponents are clearly more well liked, but people are concerned about their electabilty. The second Biden underperforms in a primary is the second that he is done.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Typo posted:Clinton 2008 actually did pretty well and tied the PV w/obama, unless Biden comes back 100% swinging after a brain transplant or something next debate he's on track to win 1 random state in March or something and that's it But the point is that Clinton had a commanding lead in the polls that was based on people who liked Obama better thinking that she was the most electable, and then when she actually lost Iowa there was a massive swing because the aura of electability cracked.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:How do blind trusts, foundations, and offshore stuff work to let elites avoid taxes? They allow you to hide your wealth, which is the actual hard part of any proposal to tax wealth. Suddenly, it's not your wealth. It's the wealth of this anonymous trust we don't know who they belong to, or to this company that was incorporated in the Cayman Islands or in Panama or whatever. It also applies to estate taxes (though estate taxes if there is any contention between the beneficiaries can make it all harder to hide), which is why the transfer of financial assets tax that Bernie proposes is so important. You transfer your house and assets to the company Dizz Jenouement that is based out of the Cayman Islands and at least you pay some taxes on that. And Warren is very well aware that that is the challenge. Now, having a broad idea with no specifics at this stage in the campaign is no big deal. Except that the discourse is that Warren is the wonk with actual policies versus pie in the sky Bernie. But in this key Warren policy, she has like a webpage where she discusses taxing wealth, but 0 detail or even acknowledgement of the multiple ways people can easily hide wealth. Meanwhile, Bernie has 2 full proposals, one that increases the estate tax and improves its enforcement, and another that creates a tax on all transfers of financial assets.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2019 07:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:got a link to this? Link for what? Offshore accounts to hide wealth? Look at Panama papers, for example https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/ That Warren's plan has no discussion on how to avoid these types of maneuvers? https://elizabethwarren.com/ultra-millionaire-tax/ Bernie's proposals? Tax on transfers of financial assets: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s1587/text Estate tax: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s309/text
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:this is what i meant thanks It is far more meaningful than Warren's, but you're right that it's not the sole purpose. But it's inspired by ATTAC, which did in part think of it because of that. There's no solution that will be perfect as long as you have tax havens. As for the rate, Warren's proposed wealth tax rate is 2%. On what exceeds 50 million in assets. So it's not that far off.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Dunno! Global socialist revolution and/or taxing their pants off if they try to actually live their dumb lifestyle in the US / civilized countries? Money sitting in a tax haven isn't buying you your nineteenth yacht or letting you snort cocaine off the bellies of endangered belugas. With offshore accounts it is entirely possible to spend their money in the US. Because yes, money in a tax haven can buy you your nineteenth yacht. The yacht will be in the name of your foreign account, but you have full use of it. quote:I think what I was angling for was more along the lines of: the financial transaction tax is all good and I like it, but in addition we need wealth taxes and/or estate taxes and/or other ways to redistribute the wealth of the rich. Again, Bernie has a bill that he is the sole sponsor of that makes it so that far more people pay estate tax. Estates starting at 750k pay 39%, topping off at 77% for estates over 1 billion dollars. Now, it is just as possible to get around estate taxes with offshore accounts, but 1- it requires a lot more planning and 2-requires there to be no dispute over the estate. So Bernie has an actual bill that substantially taxes wealth at the point where it is hardest to evade them, while also having taxes that get at asset transfers overall. Ytlaya posted:Do you or anyone else know how frequently transactions usually occur to tax havens? Like, do wealthy people just rarely make big conversions, or is it a frequent (1 or more times annually) thing? If the latter, Sanders' tax rate would effectively be like a significant wealth tax. Just through the files exposed by the Panama papers countries around the world were able to recover 1.2 billion dollars in taxes. That is one firm in Panama.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Well, we were talking about trust, which is why I brought it up. Bernie clearly doesn't understand the finer details of the economy, and has not given serious thought to how he would accomplish his goals. This is a joke, right? Every single one of Bernie's proposals is outlined in a bill that he has introduced as a sponsor. From increasing worker representation on boards, to how to increase the estate tax, to M4A. His proposals are far more detailed than Warren, because all of Bernie's main proposals are outlined in bills introduced in congress, while Warren has essentially a page on her website. As for Warren's poll numbers, you realize that he poll average has her behind Bernie in the nomination, and doing substantially worse against Trump in the general. Not to mention that Warren is not competing in Bernie's lane. Warren's voters are white and educated. She's competing with Harris for that segment, not Bernie. Hell, in today's HarrisX poll Warren managed to get 1% of African American voters and 8% of Latinos, versus 8 and 26 for Bernie, respectively.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I mean I find it difficult to trust someone who genuinely believes that a tax on stock and bond trades is a good idea. You realize that between 1932 and 1966 the US had a tax on all sales or transfers of stocks? And that New York state had one until 1981? That freaking Switzerland has one now?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
Now, here's the really funny thing regarding this "Bernie doesn't understand the economy, as evidenced by his tax on stocks, which is why I am backing Warren" argument: Warren actually defended the idea in previous speeches: https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/238907-warren-were-not-done-with-wall-street-yet The difference in that regard is that Bernie has actually introduced a bill.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
That is overall. Among democrats in the CNN poll Bernie has the highest favorability among democrats. If we're going to focus on that CNN poll, here's the net favorable/unfavorable for the top candidates among democrats Biden +53 Bernie +55 Warren +52 Buttigieg +37 Harris +53
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
Comparison of RCP poll average versus results for the primaries that Bernie won in 2016 (for states with enough polling for an RCP average): NH - Bernie overperformed polls by 9 points VT- Bernie underperfomed polls by 2.5 points OK- Bernie overperformed polls by 8.4 CO- overperformed by 46.5 MN- overperfomed by 57.2 MI- overperformed by 23 AK- overperformed by 66.2 WI- overperformed by 11 IN- overperformed by11.8 RI- overperformed by 14 WV- overperformed by 9.4 OR- overperformed by 25 Bernie's success has always been tied to getting unlikely voters out in a way that dramatically contradicts pollster expectations.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:What about the primaries he lost? Genuinely curious. There are more of those, but the summary is that he underperformed polls by double digits in SC, AL, MS, DE, CA, overperformed polls by double digits in NC, AZ, NM, and the rest were all within single digits of the actual result. There is no obvious pattern on the ones that he lost. Whereas in the ones that he won, he outperformed polls in every single one by close to double digits or more (except VT, where he had a 72.5% lead in the polls, hard to overperform that). joepinetree fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
eke out posted:out of curiosity, i looked up your craziest example here and RCP only has a single poll, conducted 3 months before the primary, of 310 registered voters in one of the hardest-to-poll states there is (and sanders over performed by 40 points, not 66). so it's not really much of an average I mean, I only scraped the top two rows which are results and average. And I am talking about overperfoming in the margin of victory. That poll was clinton +3 and he won +63. I'm not going to spend any time vetting the average or manually opening the page and counting polls for a post on D&D, but a quick look shows that WI, MI, NH all had over 10 polls, so even if you're going to ignore all the ones that are rarely polled the argument is still the same. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Jul 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
Lol that RCP has entered the last two polls in their average using the wrong numbers, in a way that I am sure coincidentally they enter Bernie's numbers lower than the poll, and everyone else's higher. Yougov had Biden/Bernie/Warren/Harris as 21/10/18/13 and RCP entered it as 23/9/19/15. ABC had it 29/23/11/11 and RCP entered it as 30/19/12/13
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
Just to clarify: the 10% isn't a reduction over current rents. It is a reduction over what it would have been without the policy. The estimate is that rents will go up an average of 4% without her proposal, 3% with it. I.e., it is a growth rate that is 1% lower over 10 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
Just to clarify even further: Warren's plan does 2 things: - Increases funding for the National Housing Trust Fund (as an aside, the national housing trust fund was created in 2016, but the first person to propose the creation of one in the House was one Bernard Sanders, back in 2001, for the folks who like to say that Bernie has no accomplishments). - Pays for that by increasing the estate tax, which tops out at 65%. It's not anything harmful. It just falls way short of what Bernie has proposed: https://amp.greenvilleonline.com/amp/3520397002 - Increasing the budget for the National Housing Trust Fund (like Warren's plan) - Incluzionary zoning - Federal rent control Oh, and Bernie's estate tax bill tops out at 77%.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Once more, Warren's issues on foreign policy go way beyond I/P. She voted for Trump's military budget increase, for additional sanctions on Iran, thought trump was too easy on nk. Bernie isn't perfect, but he is the only one to have called for Lula's release, to vote against sanctions on Iran, to not sign the aipac letter condemning the Obama administration for abstaining on the settlements question... That you have people disingenuously come here and try to claim they are the same is only proof of how everyone recognizes that this is all opportunistic. Yeah, I'm sure that the guy who has railed against Bernie non stop for a year sincerely believes that Warren and Bernie are similar
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidKlion/status/1149005809956859904 All the worst people are very clear that Bernie is the only threat to them and yet it's an excuse to say Warren is not as good as Bernie.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
Incrementalism had never worked. Every progressive policy ever enacted in the us is the result of starting with a bold policy. We have Medicare not because people sat around and thought that would be a good first step, but because there was a real chance of passing universal healthcare. Timid first steps are smothered in the cradle, not emboldened over time. Not to mention the magnitude of the crisis we're seeing. The gulf is in the process of becoming a single endless island of sargassum, even the paltry protections of the ACA maybe gone soon, and the next recession may take years to fix given the dependency on the gig economy. Technocratic half measures won't help with any of that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
Just wanted to make sure people didn't miss this: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_...wS&guccounter=2
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
Warren's plan isn't necessarily bad, but it's worse than Bernie's. Not a lot of detail on either, but Bernie also mentions DAPA in addition to DACA.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Personally, I’m fine with having a completely open border and letting anyone come who wants to, subject to basic security checks (I had that opinion long before the self-righteous left did, by the way; I vividly recall when Hillary Clinton was pilloried by Bernie supporters for calling for open borders). However, there isn’t really much constituency for that policy. I think there are middle ground policies that allow for some border enforcement and immigration control without the disgusting human rights abuses that are presently occurring. A good first step would be to decriminalize border crossing (which would end the camps and the family separations). A good second step would be to loosen up the asylum rules so that it can granted to more people. A good third step would be to expand the number of immigrants that can legally come to the us. There are probably other good steps to take after that too short of open borders. Wait, what? Bernie attacked Hillary because she was for open borders? What kind of dumbass nonsense is this? I mean, here's what actually happened on their debate on immigration: https://time.com/4218850/democratic-debate-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-central-america-unaccompanied-minors/ Not to mention that as the sole member of the Congressional progressive caucus in the Senate, Bernie was a signatory of fix96 in 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 06:31
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I edited that because she didn’t actually call for open borders. She said something that sounded a bit like calling for open borders, and then a bunch of Bernie people freaked out because in 2016 protectionism was in vogue on the left. Ah, yes. That is why Bernie was attacking Clinton on child deportations and had signed the fix96 resolution (which Clinton never supported or acknowledged). That is also why he hired Erika Andiola in 2015 to be on his campaign. You're not full of poo poo at all, no sir.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 06:41
|
|
|
A lot of research has shown that the college bonus (the amount, on average, that college graduates make more than the general population) is directly tied to how expensive and rare it is to get a college degree. Want to make it so people don't have to go to college to have a good job? Make college free 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1150536720582152195 I hope that comes up in the next debate
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/1151185245393379329 It's remarkable how it's the most open of secrets that Warren, Harris and Booker are full of poo poo with regards to m4a. It's supposed to be their policy in just about the top issue and yet they don't feel like defending it and no one asks about it because everyone gets that support is just for show.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2019 05:17
|
|
|
2800 is the limit to individual candidates. The limit on individual donations to national committees is 106k. In this case, Warren got the multimillionaire to give 100k to the DNC on her behalf.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
Corsair Pool Boy posted:Right, but how is that donor list transferred to Warren without it counting as a $100,000 donation? Either the contribution to the DNC in her name is a violation or giving her something worth $100k that she didn't purchase is. I know all this is just Kabuki theater anyway but this seems awfully brazen and against the intent and letter of the rules In 2016 people could write a check for 332700 for Hillary during the primary. Her campaign (but not Bernie's) had joint fundraising agreements with 33 state parties, and donations to a state party ate capped at 10k per. You didn't even have to go through the pretense of writing a check for the different state parties. Meanwhile Bernie's campaign had to pay a fine because some dozen Australian exchange students canvassed along with his campaign, and that counted as an in kind donation by foreigners. Point is that the entire system is set up to trip up small donors and Mom and Pop operations, but it's incredibly easy to bypass the rules if you have the lawyers to help you phrase things just the right way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
In the last economist poll Warren ranks first among white voters (20%), fourth among Black voters (5%) and third among Hispanics (8%). Bernie has at least double the support among Black and Hispanic. I'm sure that the people who spent the last year and a half worrying about minority support for Bernie will now start to do the same for Warren.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
generic one posted:I’d be willing to bet if this was any other campaign, you’d jump all over it and say it’s the most evil thing on the planet, instead of making excuses like you did just now. This is nonsense. Every other campaign has unpaid positions. No other campaign is unionized. If the worst that we could say about, say, the Warren campaign was that after an increase in hours, salaried people were making a little less than 15 an hour and were asking for more and waiting for the campaign's response, I'd say that'd be pretty good. Instead, on one hand we have a very matter of fact, straight reporting that the Warren campaign uses a loophole to have unpaid staff positions, and on the other, labor "troubles roil" the Sanders campaign because he is only a lot better than every other campaign, rather than perfect.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
generic one posted:Aaaaannnd there it is! Right on time! And there it is, what? What is your argument, exactly? That Bernie isn't perfect? No poo poo, sherlock. Bernie has always been the compromise candidate. And don't defend what, exactly? Bernie's campaign is still in negotiations, as it should be, and the union is holding their feet to the fire, as they should be, because that is what a union is supposed to do. I simply replied to your absolutely imbecilic point of "hah, if it had been other campaigns, you'd be raising hell." Which is an absolutely moronic point because EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE OTHER CAMPAIGNS ARE DOING WORSE! There isn't any other campaign with a union, or paying 15 an hour across the board, or negotiating to make sure that people get 15 an hour while not getting a bump in health insurance costs. That is why your point is so specially stupid, which either indicates intentional poo poo posting or just a bottom of the barrel level of intelligence. Your "hah, if it was someone else you'd be freaking out" isn't the gotcha you think it is when every other campaign treats their workers worse without being described as being "roiled" in labor proble,s/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2019 05:25
|
|