No, that's not how it works when you're trusting your staffers to do their jobs without making insane, terrible arguments.
She did not make that argument, her staff did in a case that would not have required her direct oversight.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
She did not make that argument, her staff did in a case that would not have required her direct oversight.
I think Harris and Sanders are both right, but I also think that it's kind of a weak answer. Yes, anyone who works full time should be able to live decently. But my preferred response to that kind of question would be a pivot to progressive policy that re-evaluates the viability and necessity of the traditional 40-hour work week. No reason to still be defaulting to labour policy that has barely evolved since the end of the Industrial Revolution, especially now that we're entering an era of unprecedented technological advancement and economic and ecological change. Such policies that seek to reduce the hours of a traditional work week, provide basic income, lower the age of retirement, etc may be a hard sell now, but it's never too early to start the messaging battle.
And statements that involve the phrase "dignity of work" are just a complete turn-off.
That's been changed. There are still superdelegates but I don't think they pledge until the convention now. Also they reduced the number I believe.
Do you think she was right to seek punishment for parents of truant kids? Or was that also something we can blame on her, apparently, poorly chosen staff? Has she been responsible for anything?
I do think it's a problem that basically everyone, even the super young ones are basically going to have to "evolve" on everything, and their campaigns will essentially be saying "please ignore all the things I said I believed and did in my past because I believe and will do the total opposite now!"
Bernie's problematic but his biggest advantage is that he's *closer* to maitaining a consistent message virtually his entire career than anyone else
I just worry even if others come out in support of a socialisty agenda it won't come off as genuine to far too many people
I was thinking more about public sector unions and the paul ryan thing.
No, you weren't.
Police Unions need to be banned. That article is actually a good thing.
While more Democrats say they like socialist economics over those that like capitalist economics (Thanks, Trump!), I think you may be overstating the influence that style of economic thinking will have on the race.
Based on 2018, most people didn't vote for the more socially democratic option over the more conventional Democrat when presented the option.
(Two more years of Trump and his shenanigans may change things leftward, though. Even for Republicans. Trump just hasn't held up to his economic promises to lower class people.)
No there are many other decisions she can be criticized or asked tp elaborate on that are executive in nature. The trans prisoner issue is another one of those.
This one wasnt one of them though, it was an argument in a routine filing that would have never passed her eyes and that she disavowed immediately upon being asked about.
It's kind of odd that the field hasn't evolved much in that respect.
I'm in shock that someone could write for the Intercept, and both they and their editor both don't understand how despised Police Unions are on the left side of the political axis. (the entire left side, not just lefties.)
Though that's less shocking when you see he's only written 3 pieces for The Intercept, and one of them was a Hillary/DNC hit piece, while the other was an "Attack the DNC Establishment" piece. Which makes me suspect something about the author. https://theintercept.com/staff/walker-bragman/ (edit: and he's RTing Sirota, so suspicions intensify)
well half of it is good. police unions are definitely not great.
although I have got to say, police unions aren't the only public sector unions. last time I checked there were more unionized employees in the public sector than in the private sector. So it's not as if a broad stroke "let's weaken their bargaining power" is a good thing. In fact, it strikes me as a really awful idea, especially in the midst of all these teacher strikes happening across the country in just the past few years.
Well, "better checks on collective bargaining in the public sector" includes a lot of unions you DON'T want to hurt.
Well, yes, but the police union specifically is a bit too strong and has stood in the way of reforms for a while.
Problem is that it's probably very tough to weaken only the police union and not all the other public sector unions at the same time.
There are a lot of teachers who want raises who would be very hurt when you weaken their bargaining power.
Edit: I really don't see the issue with treating police differently considering the importance of their jobs and how irresponsible they (sometimes) are. The police unions are definitely a major problem, but that wasn't the only thing in that quote.
You're talking to one of them. The teacher's union is generally fine, like I said it's the police one that is generally the issue.
Hasn't announced yet, and kinda expected to be a dud if/when he does.
Why not? Is this not exactly when you want the government to give people raises?
So which other government workers are getting laid off to pay the entire union their bonus?
The Military are currently exempted from pay furloughs during government shutdowns. This is a problem because the Military leans heavily conservative and they're able to spare a GOP consituent group from the negative side effects of what they're doing while inflicting pain on more-liberal leaning groups.
Like, Police Unions vote republican and support Republican candidates. They are fundamentally uninterested in police reform and are a constant roadblock to it. This isn't some unknown fact to anyone familiar with US labor politics, so to write the backfiring hit piece, you need to be someone completely unfamiliar with US labor activism trying to pretend you're on their side. And lo and behold, the author spent 2016 attacking Hillary and the DNC and writing "This is why liberals should support Trump" articles.
well that's true. I definitely wasn't really thinking of the consequences on the budget. sloppy thinking on my part
Also Kirblar I've lived in NY for years and I am definitely not a fan of the police union because of the type of behavior they encourage from their members and the politics they support.
I kinda hoped he would just to give voice to police and crime reforms. I don't know if anyone else will. I've heard Beto's anti-police union though, maybe he can take that place.
Last edited:
Uh.....Beto is 100% in the right, this is a good thing.
Are bernie stans so obsessed with hating Beto they are for police unions now? Jesus fucking Christ.
Read my posts. It's not really a Bernie stan. It's something far worse.
I am seeing this article rearing its head on the rose emoji bernie world social media so they are latching onto it too.
Supporting "Blue Lives Matter" to because Beto stands up to out of control police unions! Fun.
That's good cause it was kind of disheartening the last go round. I think Nevada was the best example of how it shouldn't work.
Well, it's nice to see someone admit that the your frustration with them was that they made you feel bad.
Isn't Warren's record extremely strong here? She's actually gotten more done than Bernie as well
Warren is who Bernie thinks he is. She's the real deal with getting progressive shit done.
She was actually a Republican till like 1996. I actually don't know what or if there is anything out there on her in that era; so she doesn't really have the 1972 tapes talking about revolutionizing healthcare at some library or something, (as far as I know ).. I actually think those sorts of things, while they might have been silly did a good job of convincing a lot of people that Bernie was legit and that he believed in what he said he did, because "hey look how long he's been saying it".. and I don't think the "ignore basically everything I said prior to 2007" goes over well with young voters either...
but yeah since then she's been good specifically policy wise and Warrens probably the closest to pushing far left socialisty type stuff outside of sanders despite the party switch
The parties were still much more ideologically mixed until Clinton's election and the ensuing flight of the Dixiecrats to the GOP triggering the hardening of the Southern Strategy.
As I recall, she's said used to be a free market believer, but then became increasingly convinced the market didn't work as advertised and that the kind of financial regulation and policy she now advocates was necessary. I suppose it was always economics for her.
right but like all her siblings are still like republicans to this day. which makes me think that she probably was ideologically conservative.
edit: 2/3 of her brothers are republicans
The biggest predictor of your party as a young person is your parents. Look at who Hillary campaigned for in HS. That doesnt necessarily translate to someones personal politics especially in MA (look at how liberal MA R Govs are even today) in an era when the parties were still ideologically mixed.
- Status