It's weird to see my interest in automation and the issue of its eventual social suffering be shared in someone who's in the field of the mind, my other major interest.
I am digging this Yang/Williamson crossover.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
It's weird to see my interest in automation and the issue of its eventual social suffering be shared in someone who's in the field of the mind, my other major interest.
I am digging this Yang/Williamson crossover.
It's very exciting. Opening discussions about a fundamentally new idea as a solution to foreseeable problems across the coalition.
Warren and Bernie's relationship is weird, from what I can tell while they have common ground she's the work horse in congress while he's doing other stuff like amendments. They don't seem to "team up" as much as they should. They have disagreements, too, as she's a red blooded capitalist and he is not.
Yeah, Warren's great.
Last edited:
I don't think this is the correct framing. He doesn't give a damn if you attacked him personally or not. It's more "do your policies aligns with his?"
What would happen if Bernie gets the nom and Harris isn't picked for VP?
What would happen if Harris gets the nom? Bernie gets the VP pick?
Assuming either wants the VP title in the first place.
I'm confused, I did not imply at all that Bernie is the only one that can see this.
My current position is Bernie, Biden, Gillibrand, Klobachar, and anyone else against nuking the filibuster do not see it or are acting like they cant for whatever reason.
One of my major gripes with Bernie has always been that I know he wouldn't prioritize fixing our political system.
Nuking the filibuster
Making All of our territories states
Increasing the House
Stacking the courts
Restoring and strengthening Voting Rights (I believe the legislature would push this on him though)
And much more that no candidate is even talking about. No one serious is talking about how dysfunctional the Senate is becoming and wont until majority of the country realizes 30% of the country has more say than they do.
I can only hope like some here said, that he is just talking politics and that he would be for nuking the filibuster when given the chance.
The top four are the only three with any chance plus Biden.
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1098755966689001472
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1098755966689001472
Sounds good to me. Regardless, it's excellent that Yang is likely going to make UBI a part of mainstream conversation.
It's a solid and interesting Democratic lineup all around, unlike last time. Very few milquetoast or samey candidates this time. Seems like it's anyone's game.
Yep, I just saw the interview with Chris Hayes his emphasis was on how Democrats don't have control of the Senate right now and that's why he stayed away from answering the question.
The link below is to the interview where Chris asked Bernie about the filibuster...
OP
OP
Bernie wouldn't care about ordinary posters say about him but he will when his competitors do. Hillary didn't go all out on him and their hatred for each other is legendary. He's not as good as Obama at mending fences, never has been and while he does compromise thats not what he's down for, either. I don't see him accepting a VP from anyone, he wants to be on top. When he feels like he's losing all options are on the table. Now, maybe he's changed - Hillary did, but I'd have to see it myself before simply assuming all water is under the bridge and he's a new man.
That's true.
OP
OP
Hot take: the only way you'll actually convince 51 senators to nuke the filibuster is if you run on it and win, allowing you to lie about having a mandate for it.
People think McConnell hasn't nuked because of some deep strategic plan but all evidence suggests the individual senators actually just really don't want to. So all that actually matters is what might change their opinions.
People think McConnell hasn't nuked because of some deep strategic plan but all evidence suggests the individual senators actually just really don't want to. So all that actually matters is what might change their opinions.
Could UBI help bring the reparations discussion into the trillions of dollars as some think it should be?
This interview doesn't appear to have been confirmed by Williamson yet but if it's happening maybe she'll share her first impressions on Yang's book and if she thinks UBI can work with reparations.
This interview doesn't appear to have been confirmed by Williamson yet but if it's happening maybe she'll share her first impressions on Yang's book and if she thinks UBI can work with reparations.
As much as I respect the idea of UBI being a form of reparations (I'm assuming you're referring to what Warren and Harris have said regarding minorities on this matter), I imagine this will actually create hostility for the idea. One of the things Americans have grown to hate is the conditionality of programs, so even if UBI started as a platform for the poorest, or in particular income groups, or to minority groups, all of these create landmines and animosity.
If the program has to start on conditionality for it to grow into universality, what we start with is key. Nothing saying you couldn't mix all of the above into the conditioned bracket, of course.
I'm surprised he claims the DNC already reached out about including him in debates. I wonder if there's anything to read into about that, because I know for sure he doesn't meet the criteria yet. Maybe the DNC has the heads up that folks like Hickenlooper and McCauliffe and Inslee don't plan on running so they want to keep the debate stage(s) as full as possible, at least for the first couple debates. If we had two debates with 7-8 candidates each, I think that'd strike a nice balance of giving everyone a chance to make their case and also presenting a broad spectrum of ideas. At 9-10 candidates per night I worry that we get into the territory of people desperately jockeying for air time.
I'm for reparations but the candidates need to give a bit more indication what they mean with that word - Harris' being serious "about taking an approach that would change policies and structures and make real investments in black communities." - could be understood as tacking on reparations-label to existing policies if not more clear indication how she understand the word; Warren the same as no details given except that the word was mentioned "amid her calls for the federal government to provide special home-buying assistance to residents of communities that were adversely affected by "redlining," the discriminatory practice of denying mortgages, usually in poor and nonwhite areas. ". Williamson I believe is the only one who has come out with some details, and that number is ridiculously low: "I believe $100 billion given to a council to apply this money to economic projects and educational projects of renewal for that population is simply a debt to be paid" - Williamson has put more emphasis on a "national apology" and this includes Native Americans - to my understanding none of the other candidates make a link between reparations and Native Americans.
yet that is not how I think most people understand reparations, but it is absolutely a good thing that we now have three candidates who use that word, whatever they mean with it - they way they use it (loosely) might also mean that this is actually embraced by the majority of primary contenders. Compare these ideas about reparations e.g. to Conyers' HR40, which was geared towards direct compensation "to the descendants of enslaved Africans". I mean in this very thread most people write about it as if it means a kind of
Last edited:
this only makes me like Warren and Sanders more
It's clear the system is scared of them, which means they're what the US needs to bring about systemic change
These corporate stooges would rather help Trump than see a populist win
I didn't mean to demean Reid, since he seems to be on the right side, but mostly the people attacking Bernie for "not being a Democrat" who use that as a pretext for not supporting a populist
I can see why the wording of my post could be confusing though
Can you detail this hatred? You make it sound like it was personal. As far as I'm aware, Bernie never attacked anyone personally besides Trump specifically. He aggressively attacks the system. If a candidate is part of the problem then so be it. Bernie didn't care to use this email scandal again Hillary. He just talked about corruption.
I think he actually would've taken a back seat if he honestly thought there was a better candidate. This being on top doesn't make sense when all these years, he finally decided to run for president in '16. If his ego is that big he would've attempted a run it years ago. But even then I don't equate running for president to be egotistical by default anyways. Didn't think that of Obama and didn't think that here.
From what I've seen so far, if Beto runs, he's going to suck the oxygen out of the room. It'll be down to him and Kamala for the nom.
Posted this in Poliera but it still made me chuckle
Wear that badge with honor.
Has Ocasio-Cortez said anything like this since Bernie's launch? She was taking a support all candidates position not that long ago.
Yep. In this country minority positions have consistently held majority power. Any candidate that doesn't make this front and center won't make me too excited.
I'm confused as to why this wasn't fixed when we had the Senate, house and presidency.
She said just last week she is not going to endorse anyone before the NY primary and to not ask her.
I mean, just go watch videos from the 2016 primary debates lol.
The brutal reality is that a Biden presidency and a Sanders presidency wouldn't be drastically different as far as whats achievable. Translating rhetoric into actual policy that can pass Congress is a herculean, once-in-a-generation task. But we can for sure have liberal courts and appointments in the executive branch.
Rally behind whoever wins.
Rally behind whoever wins.
^ No. Biden is a fraud.
FFS how are people so blind? Or do they just not care about the same things as me? I don't get it.
Here's some stances from Biden. Older article but it sums up the piece of trash well enough.https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/01/the-case-against-joe-biden.html
FFS how are people so blind? Or do they just not care about the same things as me? I don't get it.
Here's some stances from Biden. Older article but it sums up the piece of trash well enough.https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/01/the-case-against-joe-biden.html
- Status