I got yer "Tulsi surge" hangin' buddy! Okay on the serious tip (HA!) I think I'm going to get ahead of the power curve here and start selling brand new custom made excuses for Democrats! All the 2016 excuses for losing are played out or just not applicable to 2020. Nobody wants to hear a broken record - I'm getting to work thinking up creative, outside-the-box excuses that run the entire emotional gamut to peddle to the losers who don't want to sound like.....losers for lack of a better term. I'm going to help them implode with style & dignity and make a dollar and a cent in the process!
I watched the first minute of that and it seems to boil down to her "surging" in one single state, leaving her in fifth place with 6% of the vote. Stop the whole primary IMHO, Tulsi clearly has it wrapped up. edit: And looking up the poll it has a +-3.8% margin of error.
An article by a guy named Hemingway (pretty sure Right wing): "Why did they [the Left in 2016] snap? Well, Barack Obama was a well-spoken, generally nice guy. He also sued nuns to make them pay for abortions. Everyone in his orbit spent months in 2012 calling Mitt Romney — Mitt Romney! — a racist felon who gave people cancer. Obama brought a mobbed-up Chicago banker to the White House and emphatically endorsed that mobbed-up banker’s run for his old Senate seat. He made excuses for the Internal Revenue Service going after his political enemies. He lied repeatedly about health care. He gave cash to terrorists and guns to cartels, and his own “wingman” at the Justice Department said people were racist for asking questions about the latter. I could go on about Obama, yet I still see journalists routinely praising his manner and civility as if there weren’t a whole lot of very disturbing cracks in that facade. (Speaking of journalists and civility, Trump’s “human scum” tweet came just a few minutes before a Washington Post columnist blithely accused him of inciting murder.) But maintaining the illusion is a necessary part of the “regulative fiction” Washington has to tell itself to justify letting their preferred leaders exercise awesome amounts of power in deeply questionable ways. Supporting Voter ID does not make you racist. Being against abortion does not make you sexist. Wanting border security does not make you xenophobic. And thinking that baking cakes at the point of a gun is a bad idea does not make you homophobic. I have no illusions about Trump’s way of engaging and debating people and why it coarsens politics. But discrediting and even dehumanizing your opposition was the dominant form of politicking before Trump came along, and that was obvious to voters no matter how much the media and administrative state tried hide it or give it a patina of respectability. If you’re continually surprised we’ve arrived at a point where much of the country doesn’t regard Trump’s rhetoric as disqualifying, you haven’t been paying attention." /editorial Here's the link, Hemmingway wrote a few other paragraphs to begin his article.
That's pretty much where I am too. I guess I'm a lefty on guns compared to the complete loony-tunes positions that the NRA has moved toward, but I have no desire to ban private gun ownership, and I think that grammatically speaking, it's crystal clear that the "well regulated militia" clause is intended as an explanation, not a limiter.
A while back, some researchers did a study where they polled voters about their opinions on various issues, then asked congressmen what they expected the poll results would say. You might expect that the congressmen would overrate the popularity of their own positions, but what really happened is that both Democratic and Republican lawmakers consistently overestimated the conservatism of the electorate. All this moaning is a symptom of that fact.
Sorry, I can't remember if this has been posted yet. What We Know About Tulsi Gabbard’s Base ... So what do we know about Gabbard’s base? For one thing, it’s overwhelmingly male — in The Economist’s national polling average, her support among men is in the mid-single digits, while her support among women is practically nonexistent. This trend is evident in other recent polls as well. Last week’s Quinnipiac poll of Iowa found Gabbard at 5 percent among men and 1 percent among women, and Quinnipiac’s new survey of New Hampshire found her at 9 percent among men and 4 percent among women. A late October national poll from Suffolk University found her at 6 percent among men and 2 percent among women. Her predominantly male support shows up in other ways, too. An analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics found that only 24 percent of Gabbard’s itemized contributions had come from female donors,Small-dollar contributions are through June 30 of this year, while large-dollar contributions (contributions from donors whose total contributions exceed $200 this year) are through Sept. 30. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-tulsi-gabbards-base/
Actually, the MSM has done a fairly good job documenting that members of the Saudi royal family gave billions to OBL and AQ. Yet nothing's been done about it. Oh sure, the families of 9/11 victims have been allowed to sue, good luck on being able to collect. If Tulsi wins and declassifies the documents, all that will happen is that I get to post this: Because so long as money is the driver of politics in the US then folks like the House of Saud aren't going to have to worry about consequences for their actions.
He would've been better off running for Senate here or even for governor in 2022 (though that's obviously still a possiblity).
Most of these candidates should have done that as soon as by the third debate they saw their polling numbers hovering around 2%.
she's really not. But she seems to be sucking up all the support from poll respondents who hate Democrats so that's something I guess.
and the whole surgewas made up of people who were Trump voters last time and identify as conservatives. In today's Economist/YouGov poll she got 2% overall - 1% of those (Dems and indys) who voted for Clinton - 21% (to lead the field! - among those who voted for Trump. She got 15% among those identifying themselves as conservatives and 0% among liberals. Either she's popular among people who're never gonna vote for the Dem anyway... or the polls are being trolled. Either way, Tulsi can bugger off.
I like him for Warren's VP But it's been clear for a while he wasn't catching on. I hate to see the one's I like not exit with dignity. There's really no path there.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/pers...XCJsXYnXqDFXzWB-fZv2Auac0jgR1tj2MKGllQFEDr7b8 It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Medicare for All. That's why I'm impressed that Senator Elizabeth Warren's campaign reached out to me to independently review her proposed financing plan for the program. Her numbers add up and her plan fully finances the program without imposing any new taxes on middle-class families. The most important source of revenue for Warren's Medicare for All plan is simply to have businesses pay their employees' health insurance premiums to Medicare instead of private insurance companies. Over time, businesses would be required to pay slightly less to Medicare for health insurance than they would otherwise have paid to private insurers. New small businesses with fewer than 50 employees would not be required to make these payments. There has been some handwringing that this would be regressive. That is, lower-paid workers would suffer, since businesses would pay more for lower-paid workers' health insurance as a percent of their pay than for higher-paid workers. But companies' current premiums generally vary by the type of insurance plan and family size, and not by employee income. Warren's Medicare for All plan effectively preserves this. And by replacing trillions of dollars in individual spending on health care with new taxes on large corporations and the rich, her plan overall is clearly progressive. Warren's Medicare for All plan is also paid for in part by the taxes generated from the increase in take-home pay that workers will enjoy as they no longer pay toward private health insurance. The typical worker shells out several thousand dollars a year, untaxed, to insure their family. Under Medicare for All, that worker would receive that money as wages, which would be subject under existing law to income and payroll taxes. Large too-big-to-fail banks, financial firms and large multinational corporations would also pay more to fund Warren's M4A. While the merits of these tax increases are debatable, there is little debate regarding the revenues they will generate. This is based on past work done by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, the non-partisan government organizations that assess the budgetary costs of government spending and tax policies. Perhaps the most controversial of Warren's proposed methods to finance Medicare for All is to increase taxes on the super-rich. This includes significantly upping her wealth tax on the nation's 600-plus billionaires. Some critics believe Warren's taxes on the wealthy would be unfairly confiscatory, substantially cutting into their wealth. Perhaps. But over the past two generations, the top 0.1% of Americans has seen its share of the nation's wealth more than double to 20%. This trend is not consistent with a well-functioning market economy and democracy like ours'. Criticism that Warren is overestimating the revenue she can hope to generate from the wealth tax is overblown. She addresses these concerns by saying she will empower and appropriately fund the Internal Revenue Service to go after those who willfully avoid paying their taxes. Enforcing our tax laws and best practices on tax compliance can generate significant revenue. Closing America's tax gap — the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid —would help Warren get the revenue she needs. To be sure, these aren't the only taxes on the wealthy that Warren has proposed. In addition to the wealth tax, which she also uses to pay for her child care, college affordability and K-12 education plans, she wants a larger estate tax to pay for her housing plan, higher payroll and net investment income taxes would go toward her Social Security reforms, and she supports repealing Trump's tax cuts for high-income households to generate even more revenue for her plans. With this combination of tax changes, there is a reasonable concern that the wealthy will work overtime to avoid paying. But once we start to consider the broader consequences of the totality of Warren's plans, it's incumbent we do so with regard to both her tax proposals but also the investments those taxes will fund. Based on my own analyses, Warren's plans for child care, housing and green manufacturing would spur economic growth and produce more tax revenue. Considering the economic impact of all her proposals (an analysis no one has done yet), it is very possible that total government revenues generated by her plans will exceed the total amount of new investments she proposes. Criticism that Senator Warren's Medicare for All plan can't be paid for, at least not without putting a greater financial burden on lower- and middle-income Americans, is wrong. Of course, Warren's Medicare for All plan isn't the only way to provide health insurance to all Americans, rein in growing health care costs and improve health care outcomes. A more tractable approach in my view is to allow those who like their private health insurance to keep it and to build on Obamacare by giving everyone else an option to get Medicare. I don't agree with Warren's vision for our health care system, but I admire that she has clearly and credibly laid out that vision and that she sought out the opinions of those who may disagree with her to provide independent validation of her numbers. That's the kind of rigor we should expect from all of our presidential candidates.
so a rapist did not "turn his life around" when incarcerated and indeed actually committed rape yet again? Next thing you'll tell me is child molesters don't learn their lesson, in which case I'm hoisting the bullshit flag!
I wanted to facepalm, but I didn't want you to think I'm facepalming you, thus the green check. Anyhoo, holy shit balls. What is with these people? Does Deval think he's god's gift to politics? Does he think people won't notice a rapist relative getting special treatment? Seriously? I mean, I would expect it from Trump supporters, so maybe he thinks he can do it, too.
A former governor of Massachusetts--and, apparently, close friend of Obama--can't be taking the decision to jump in lightly. Methinks there are concerns about the current set of candidates.
