Whoa, there's someone (Mnuchin) from the administration answering questions from the briefing room. That hasn't happened in quite a while damn.
-
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.
US PoliERA 2019 |OT5| She's got a plan for that, now sashay away
- Thread starter Aaron
- Start date
- Status
This is a coordinated drip. I don't know if Pelosi's plan is to use it as a ratchet for something else or simply to buy time— or if she's planning to pretend to buckle to the will of the voters as expressed through the drip drip of congressional flips but I've watched interviews with every recent addition to the list and they are all using the same messaging "Nancy supports my decision but believes that more investigation is required"
Problem is that even if she has a date in mind that she's run minutes off the clock to trump's benefit. The only accelerant that could even potentially be on the horizon is a sober play by play from Mueller to the public. Hope Hicks could also have been a bombshell had they not conceded to her private testimony.
As cringey and as problematic as Biden is, I would just have serious worries about the mass appeal of Bernie and Warren in those all important swing states. People in Midwestern and rust belt states love the wishy washy, let's work together, "he tells it like it is" shit that Biden peddles. But will those people view Warren and Bernie as too far left?
Like, would either of them be able to flip back those states that went for Obama and then Trump? Or do we almost need a centrist "white daddy" to have any hope there?
Like, would either of them be able to flip back those states that went for Obama and then Trump? Or do we almost need a centrist "white daddy" to have any hope there?
Cruz also won this seat, so I do wonder if it's a seat you only pick up if you win Texas.
What actually matters is how many of those views were from Maine itself. I would caution taking Twitter and Social Media support as support in the ground in one's constituency. (To be clear, I think Collins is done with Trump at the top of the ticket.)
Also, I know some are disappointing that their known candidates aren't running for Senate. But you can find some hidden gems that you wouldn't otherwise if you don't look past the obvious candidates.
Ask me tomorrow and my opinion will probably change, but right now I'm of the opinion that we need to create more Democrats and break our addiction to the mythical swing voter. Biden and Warren/Bernie have opposite problems, Biden wins the mythical swing voter but can't get out the base, and visa versa for Warren/Bernie. IMO we are better off motivating our voters and giving people a reason to vote Democrat rather than "play it safe" which is like a strategy of playing not to lose. That strategy is what Hillary did and look what happened.
OP
OP
No better time to find out than now
tbh the only real whiff is Bullock if he doesn't run in Montana. For all the belly-aching over Beto and Abrams, while I do think they'd be upgrades we already have decent candidates running in Texas and Georgia.
I read somewhere (almost guaranteed to be here) that this allowed Trump's WH lawyers to assert a bunch of things that won't hold up in court. So while it didn't get us the publicity we might have wanted, it still helped the cause.
It actually also matters for her to be able to raise a credible amount of money from everywhere, including outside of Maine, to mount a serious enough campaign. So no, it absolutely does matter.
Is there really any hope for Hegar statewide after she just lost her House race last year?
I also remember many adamantly stating that woman giving the white power symbol on camera in those hearings was "accidental." Nothing these people do is accidental.
Yeah, the law he's proposing is when Congress declares war, there's automatically a trust fund set up and a war tax kicks in on people making over $200k.
Beto's not proposing a new tax right now.
I think it boils down to "they have national aspirations, and also think they'd lose." It's probably why Beto isn't running. He's definitely DOA if he loses two senate races.
The tax was on anyone not in the military, ranging from $25 for a very poor family to $1000 for those over $200K, is what I saw.
Probably wants to be Governor in 2022. A lot of politicians prefer the political environment of their home than Washington. Having seen politics in the capital, I wouldn't blame them.
When the Census 5-4 decision comes down, blue states should immediately notify the Feds that based on Texas' precedent of mid-decade re-runs of Census counts, that all the states screwed over by the GOP will get their populations correct, whether the Feds like it or not.
That would be awesome and I'd agree if any reasonable Republican was in the White House. Unfortunately, that isn't the case right now.
It's not only >$200K.
It's stupid, just a weird attempt to make it abundantly clear that everyone pays for war.
I hear you, and it's something I grapple with too, but right now I'm of the thinking that with an absolute monster in the White House we can't afford to play it safe. The poles are getting further apart and a compromise candidate does nothing but make no one happy.
Too bad Booker is the Warren debate. Oh well, assuming he gets more questions about it up front, Biden will get follow-ups the next day.
It's to increase accountability from congress and people who make money off of war because they have to make a cost decision for their constituents, but I don't see a winning avenue by proposing this. People aren't going to like feeling punished for being protected - especially if they're making less than $30k. Then again, they don't pay me the big bucks, so I don't know where they're going with this. He's previously proposed cutting military spending to fund his other stuff, like his climate plan.
Bernie offered a war tax in 2015, but it was strictly for millionaires to fund military operations.
Edit: No one is paying me, to be clear - I just assume that people who get paid, presumably a lot, to help create stuff like this have a plan.
Bernie offered a war tax in 2015, but it was strictly for millionaires to fund military operations.
Edit: No one is paying me, to be clear - I just assume that people who get paid, presumably a lot, to help create stuff like this have a plan.
Fuck the citizenship question, but this is not what happened in Texas. In 2002, the GOP won unified control of TX for the first time since Reconstruction. They decided to use their newfound power to enact a mid-decade redistricting in 2003, which was unprecedented. Though the previous map had been a Democratic gerrymander (we maintained a 17-15 edge in the US House delegation in 2002 despite losing the popular vote in TX), they still did something dirty and underhanded.
The population counts from the census were never in question, were not rerun, and were not tampered with. They just redrew the lines for the US House radically.
This kind of shit makes me think leaders should be drafted.
"Sorry professor Smith, you're drafted to serve as head of the environmental agency for six years based on your experience and knowledge base. Voters picked you from four other qualified candidates.You'll be able to resume your tenure after that."
"Apologies Mr. Jones, your impeccable record, three advanced degrees and people skills and collaborative abilities mean you've been selected unanimously as President."
I like the -theory- of "all Americans sacrificing at least a little for our war efforts" to offer a constant reminder of the human costs, but, man, taxing regular people a single penny for that is freaking ridiculous. Bush's post-9/11 absurdity of "we don't need to at all change if we're going into an endless war; please be sure you continue to keep shopping so the terrorists don't win!" was quite silly, but this is not how you make up for it.
I wonder if a group of states could band together to run a mid-decade census. I can't imagine the expense, but I think we're living in pretty unprecedented times. I'm not sure what it would accomplish though.
In a world where the popular vote means something that would probably be the best strategy. Unfortunately the voting partitioning gives rural areas more power to check urban areas than there should be IMO.
Right, the redistricting was just a farce, the Census numbers were mostly correct.
Then the next Dem POTUS overseeing a Census count should add an entire section on gun ownership, trigger lock usage, and just for giggles a question about how many guns are in the household.
The states? No, but I imagine a Democratic president could direct the Census Bureau to do something.
That's why winning in 2020 is so important. Even if the we have the citizenship question affecting the counts, a Democratic president and Congress could mitigate the damage. Ditto having Democrats in control at the state level when redistricting comes along.
The only Midwest states that matter electorally are PA, MI, and WI, and the only one that *really* went rogue in 2016, relative to polling, was Wisconsin.
I'm reasonably sure PA and MI are swinging back regardless of the candidate. I don't know wtf is up with Wisconsin, but we could also win Iowa and not need WI. Though that would be a little weird.
Not following it closely, but was it perhaps a play for the vet vote?
One of Betos big issues when he was in Congress was trying to overhaul the VA as Ft. Bliss consistently ranked near the bottom. This seems to be the a combination of that continued issue, trying to introduce ensure that wars are authorized by Congress and simultaneously holding elected officials responsible for their decisions because of the direct impact on their constituents.
I don't think it would work because too much of this country sucks.
I don't think it would work because too much of this country sucks.
It just seems silly, as money is never something that the military is lacking. It's all about allocation of war funds to both war and post-war.
She got the raids called off (probably because he'd been told they'd be expensive, unpopular, and impracticable, but he had to save face).
Technically none of the midwest is the midwest, it actually the midwest, but I'm sure it was called that before we settled west of the Mississippi.
About 300 of the children have also been moved out of that one camp, also.
Kudos to Pelosi, but the "won't you think of the children" quote was a little eyeball rolling.
If you're talking about the area around Ohio, west of Pennsylvania and east of the Mississippi, that's known as the Old Northwest.
I think that argument is eyeroll-inducing when used in the context of "protecting" children from brain-rotting television and seeing two men marry on Arthur.
When it's about protecting children from literal danger - separation from parents, being put in camps, children who are citizens watching undocumented parents get deported - I don't think it's corny at all. We should be thinking of and defending the most vulnerable members of our society.
So it's a new tax on 200k+ (non military family) taxpayers. This is definitely completely different than what has been described by the media. I know twitter folks just superficially take the headline, so it was really irresponsible for journalists to make it about a 'tax' on everyone.
- Status