-
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
Was just reading that interview last night, changed my mind it personally. I think it is a more honest place to start to find out from the community first, what is needed before putting out race neutral solutions.
Nah, too hard, gotta just play hot potato until people forget about it or deal with it through the courts or ballot measures like we've done for every hot button issue. Can't dare to deal with these issues head on.
Warren just tweeted about Northeastern... they got destroyed like an hour ago.
EDIT: Ah, she deleted it.
EDIT: Ah, she deleted it.
Last edited:
You're not gonna find a concrete plan on reparations, as anyone who has seriously researched the issue will tell you. HR40 is a good start though.
Well then what do you say if you have no concrete plan yet? As far as I know, this is the first election where reparations have been a serious topic of discussion, and there are a lot of factors to consider when making an effective plan instead of throwing one out on the table just to have one. A conversation is needed right now so we can determine what the best plan is so that when one is laid out, it's not ineffective or unrealistic, and that's exactly what Beto - and every other major Dem running right now - is doing.
Full context of that quote:
Sounds like a pretty reasonable stance to take unless you're a reactionary goblin like Tom Watson.
Which is what Warren did.
"So I believe it's time to start the national full-blown conversation about reparations in this country. And that means I support the bill in the House to appoint a congressional panel of experts, people that are studying this and talk about different ways we may be able to do it and make a report back to Congress, so that we can as a nation do what's right and begin to heal."
Just because one doesn't exist currently does not mean one could ever exist and it is, in fact, the job of a politician like Beto to plan, propose and rally people around policies like these.
And those things require time, which he doesn't have when being asked about reparations. There is currently a bill that exists (HR40) to address this issue, but it hasn't passed yet, and I don't expect him to have an answer to something this complex when it hasn't been sufficiently researched. People aren't going to wait until he has enough time to come up with a plan before asking him about it, so his best option at this point is to simply encourage the conversation until more information is known about what can be feasibly be done about reparations.
That's not what Beto has said. As far as I can tell Beto has not committed to anything but "pushing the conversation forward about history" which you can't seriously tell me is anything but a smokescreen for inaction.
Correct me if I'm wrong though. Has he ever talked about HR40?
Last edited:
The main thing beto keeps getting criticized for is the lack of concrete proposals so im not sure id call his lack of commitment an "ability "
That's a fair criticism, but I do think he is actively seeking a conversation on the issue as shown by the first paragraph of the excerpt you linked, but upon looking into it further it does seem his position right now is not as hardline as other candidates. I don't see why he would be opposed to something like HR40, but I do not believe he has discussed it yet.
I agree. With speech like that, I don't think he's going to oppose HR40. I doubt he gets out of SC without someone asking him specifically about the bill. So, we'll see.
I'm increasingly skeptical one would choose the other even though the idea is floated here a lot (many times by myself). Tactically, what advantage would Kamala offer over Stacey Abrams for Beto? Abrams could help turn Georgia and also do some minor atonement for the kinda gross fact that Beto, Abrams, and Gillum all lost close races, but only white guy Beto was given the national attention to realistically turn it into a Presidential run.
As for Kamala, it still makes some good sense for her to choose Beto due to the allure of Turning Texas blue which would basically go down in history books, but in terms of simply making sure she hits 270 and not trying to score a grand slam, why not go with someone who has the most benefit when it comes to flipping back Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania? In that regard Beto is still an ok choice presumably, but I think you've got better options: Gretchen Whitmer, Tammy Duckworth, and under the conventional wisdom that the ticket should be gender balanced you've got Tom Wolf, Gov of PA who won re-election in 2018 by 17%.
A VP needs to be an attack dog, and doubly so for Beto since he's so above the fray. Kamala is probably the best at this out of anyone in the field right now. It's probably her single strongest quality and why she might even get the nomination. She's also a sitting senator, which brings prestige and more experience to the ticket than someone like Abrams would. Especially important due to that being one of his top perceived weaknesses.
Galaxy brain: If you were serious about the environment you'd stay home old man!!111
Serious brain: Good shit.
Republicans will just repeat the "socialist has 4 houses!!" talking point instead
First unionising now this!
I'll bet those houses have walls too!
What a slacker. Big Oil Beto would have burned so much un-carbon-neutralized gas driving to each rally in one day!
Last edited:
That was the most Tucker fucking thing lmao. Glad that guy called him out on that nonsense
bernie isn't walking to california he can't even walk out of the shower
Lol at none of the Democratic candidates attending AIPAC. I think Netanyahu made a terrible error totally throwing his lot in with the Republican party during the Obama years. Before support of Israel among elected officials in the Democratic party was pretty much unconditional. Now that he's made support of Israel a partisan issue in America by openly embracing Republicans, publicly pissing on Obama, and openly courting far-right parties in Israel. Long-term, it's a bad move
Eh, the dems were a bit more willing to pressure Israel than the pubs. They were still major kiss-ups, but there's a difference between an Obama and Clinton wrt Israel and a W. and Trump. Which is why Net even disliked Obama. But, yeah, it was a bad move on his part to piss on Obama.
I feel like with Democrats (at least moreso Obama, I'm too young to remember Clinton) there was a sense with Israel of like "come on, don't make this hard for us." Similar to how you see all these Republicans constantly talk smack about Trump whenever he does or says something egregiously stupid or rude, but still fall in line at the end of the day because they're on the same team.
But perhaps even with Obama's colder stance, and especially Bibi's pissy reaction to it all that's laid the groundwork for the further distance we're seeing now. Like they hate us when we're with them 98% of the time, so why even bother?
Damn, I would drive down to Charleston right now if I didn't have friends coming into town
He will probably be back again if his Senate run is anything to go by. He traveled around the state like 100 times lol
He posseses the ability to inspire with his words that few others can. Unfortunately sounds like he's starting to lose his voice. Either too much speaking or he's getting a cold
If you support the release of Chelsea Manning you support Russia. She was granted immunity for her testimony, agreed, and then went into the grand jury and stonewalled them. She deserves to stay in jail until she talks. I also have my doubts this account actually belongs to Mike Gravel and it isn't just some troll online
- Status