-
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 | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
to be fair that's not really much worse than, uh, the entire last page
insofar as dismissal of your point is approximately The Same Level of Content as most of those posts
Yeah I almost tied her with Sanders for my number one spot because of that.
We always can make it better at any time. I'm just surprised they didn't find a way to mention T***P in it.
the highlight of 2016
also, wow is that Monmouth Poll taking its time. Maybe we can get a Monmouth Direct
I still remain a bit skeptical of Pete. We're starting to see a bit more chinks in his armor. I although thought it weird that Joe Scarbs was gushing over Pete as well which may be due to Pete having ideas less progressive than many expect. I could be completely wrong but I guess we'll know more when he's on the debate stage.
Oh your bad faith post and personal attacks and antagonizing were meant to be an invitation to have a conversation?
My mistake.
OK then, if you want a conversation maybe you could explain why "daddy Bernie" is fine but "abuela" needs to be brought out to be flogged yet again, despite that Clinton isn't running in 2020. Maybe you can explain why Nina Turner's shielding of a pro - travel ban lackey is fine.
Or did you want to just keep making unsubtle and unsubstantiated jabs about how other posters are racist?
I have to laugh at you accusing anyone else of posting in bad faith.
Cool, so it's just going to be deflection, bullying and personal attacks then. Feel free to address my questions if actually want to have a conversation.
Considering nurses are overworked as is it would be a thing to consider, but it would be offset by making sure people actually get fair wages and work reasonable hours and not "oh Bob Hospital is making less money so it's gonna be a no"
This is not a good look. Baltimore's Mayor is currently on a leave of absence for something similar (though more egregious as it's state funds rather than campaign funds.) It's also the third "self-dealing" thing we've seen in his family, with his stepdaughter's school getting funds from the college that went under, his son being paid 100K to run that foundation before they closed it up (out of like, 500K in funds raised), and now this.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/7093...ors-examine-book-scandal-involving-mayor-pugh
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/7093...ors-examine-book-scandal-involving-mayor-pugh
Listen, we need a good Bernie conspiracy theory after it turned out his tax returns were clean.
Wouldn't this be a donation by the candidate to the campaign normally, not a purchase by the campaign? (not a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer to this)
Something being a big deal or not has nothing at all to do with any "conspiracy". This is a fact, not baseless speculating.
Gonna assume not because the candidate would have to buy the copies themselves. Publishers don't give them away for free.
I've got no idea, but the person who brought it up initially (Twitter user Brit) linked to that guy so even she appears to have second thoughts about it.
Edit:ooks like campaigns do in fact often use their money to purchase their own books and the FEC is cool with it so long as they follow certain conditons. www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/when-politicians-buy-their-own-books
"The F.E.C. first addressed the issue of campaign-book-buying in 1995, when Alfonse D'Amato's reëlection committee requested permission to buy copies of "Power, Pasta, and Politics" to distribute as thank-you gifts to donors. In an advisory opinion, the F.E.C. stated that the practice was allowable, so long as the candidate received no royalties for the purchases (D'Amato had suggested donating the royalties to charity, which the F.E.C. approved of), and so long as the books were not resold or given away to people who had not made donations.
Giving supporters a signed copy of a book has since become standard practice among political candidates. Most campaign committees now notify the F.E.C. in advance of book purchases to avoid problems down the line."
Last edited:
What's the hangup here? Ethics or legality?
If it's legality, then it's seemingly okay:
https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/f-e-c-rules-on-politicians-memoirs/
If it's legality, then it's seemingly okay:
https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/f-e-c-rules-on-politicians-memoirs/
That makes sense- campaigns being able to sell the book is a no-brainer, but needing to donate the royalties if purchased directly is a decent solution.
Yeah everyone running always has a recent published book.
There's no ethical/moral issues if Bernie donated the money to charity, which he probably did.
It's a nothing thing meant to engender some preconceived notion that the only reason people support Bernie is his "purity" which has been stated again and again and again to be untrue. It's yet another empty, process oriented stab to go "see he's just like the rest" when the answer is yeah, no duh. He's a career politician, of course he acts like a career politician.
So yeah, they usually do. It's easy merchandising and a quick way to get the message out.
A quick google search shows that Harris, Warren, Butegeig, Gabbard, and Booker all have a book released since 2016, Warren, Harris, and Butegeig have one releasing or already released this year as well . (I'm not doing everybody there's 50 candidates)
So yeah, they usually do. It's easy merchandising and a quick way to get the message out.
Yeah, this is basically a case of "did you remember to turn off the metaphorical stove before we left for vacation?" If it's a problem, it'll blow up, if not it'll be fine. Looking over the returns you go from 2015-6K, 2016-10K (big jump in income) to 2017- 36K which might be it, but I don't even know where to begin at guesstimating book royalties.
Panties flewed out of the solar system. Beto please stand on top of me.
All Bernie has to be is the best candidate to fulfil your purity requirements and you're stuck with him. Where else are you going to go? Warren, Tulsi, Oprah's spiritual advisor? As a socialist there aren't many choices to pick from to uphold your ideals.
... Duh?
I don't think this is going to work as a gotcha, when I've said repeatedly I don't trust Bernie Sanders. He's a career politician, I would be a fool to trust him.
I support him because he's the candidate that advocates and gives what I believe ideologically the best chance to flourish. That's it. If he doesn't do what he's promised then we're back to square one regardless. I don't care about his "purity" and the standing of his position, I just know that he's the only candidate that at least is positioning what I believe to be the future.
That's enough.
i wanna read a bernie book but im a little worried itll be boring as shit and i wont like him as much anymore
Not a big fan of Warren tbh. Solid ideas, but I don't like her temperament. Reminds me of Jeb Bush in a way. I think she's better suited in the Senate.
Who's that veteran woman that's running? She's cool
I haven't heard a peep about Beto in weeks, what happened? Did Pete ate his lunch? Where's the hype he inspired last year?!
- Status