- Mar 21, 2019
We have a sizable OT for people claiming the media is against Sanders. It plays REALLY well to the people who already support him but turns everyone else the hell off.
I still think this Markey nonsense is entertaning.
The only reason he would lose is because his opponent is a fucking Kennedy. It's 100% based on name recognition and family dynasties....the things that are supposedly so horrible. Having to run against a Kennedy in a Democratic primary is a rock and a hard place situation.I still think this Markey nonsense is entertaning.
I'd be embarrassed if I was him. Essentially, people coming out to say "please don't run, he will likely lose to you if you run" trying to defend me.
LMAO. Must be the Virginia dignity in me, but I'd just retire.
That thread is kind of hilarious, tbh. I don't really know why it's still open when it just periodically gets bumped to bitch about the dumb WaPo fact checker.
It's not an accellerationist POV, it's that Carter really was that bad as a President. He took a golden opportunity and completely squandered it.idk saying that you would vote for Ford over Carter in 1976 is similar to the talking point some lefties used in 2016 about how we should prefer Trump winning over Clinton because it would lead to the destruction of the Republican Party.
you don't vote based on some hypothetical chain reaction. the republicans were still shit in the 70s
but I guess we're relitigating the 1976 election now lmao
Of course you don't. And it wasn't subtweeting you with the post.
Yeah, this is one of those freebies you take to be "maverick-y".
I didn’t think you were. I was just disagreeing.
Yeah, France's experience suggests that this is best accomplished through a net of other taxes that accomplish roughly the same thing.I think the history of wealth taxes implemented by other nations and corresponding failures is probably what's going to doom its chances.
We need a candidate who's somewhat honest about the need for a complete tax reform that may not be popular but is realistic in what actually needs to be done.
Just one day after President Donald Trump dismissed national security adviser John Bolton, administration officials are discussing the possibility of replacing Bolton with his chief rival, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Under this scenario, the country's top diplomat would absorb the national security adviser role and do both jobs, according to a senior administration official and a source familiar with the possibilities.
That would make Pompeo the second person in history to have both jobs at the same time. The first, Henry Kissinger, was already President Richard Nixon's national security adviser when he was appointed secretary of state in 1973, and filled both roles for two years.
It's unclear how seriously Trump is considering this possibility, and a source familiar with the process says that Pompeo has given the President a list of other names to consider. On Wednesday, when asked about his top picks to replace Bolton, the President said, "I have five people that want it very much... Five people that I consider very highly qualified, good people."
Last night, attending a Washington charity ball with his wife, Pompeo laughed with friends about Bolton being fired. The two were often at odds with each other and had even stopped talking to each other outside formal meetings. Pompeo was jovial and his mentality was "what a day, what a life, what a job," explained a source who was at the event.
For now, Pompeo will remain the President's primary foreign policy adviser, explained another source close to the White House.
"He is going to act as national security adviser at least in the near term. Trump is happy with that," the person said.
An administration official cautions that "the Kissinger model" could be dangerous for Pompeo, especially given his dominant position within the administration. With a dual role, Pompeo risks becoming too powerful for Trump's taste, the source said.
If Trump opts to keep the position as a stand-alone role, nearly a dozen potential Bolton successors are being floated.
A senior administration official and source with knowledge of the matter told CNN on Wednesday that as of now, Brian Hook, the US special representative for Iran and senior policy adviser to Pompeo at the State Department and Steve Biegun, the special envoy to North Korea, have emerged as top contenders.
While sources have cautioned that Trump could always change his mind and pick a candidate who is not currently being discussed, Hook or Biegun would be a marked departure from Bolton.
Unlike Bolton, who was criticized by Trump on Wednesday for his positions on several foreign policy issues, including Iran and North Korea, Hook and Biegun are unlikely to challenge the President's desire for diplomatic deal-making, a quality that appears to be a prerequisite for the national security adviser post.
Some officials said this week that Bolton's acrimonious departure was a sign that the role he occupied could be diminished going forward. Much like Trump acts as his own communications director and chief of staff — despite having actual staff members in those roles — he is likely to look warily on another national security adviser who acts with as much leeway as Bolton did.
Eager to rack up wins ahead of next year's reelection battle, Trump will also weigh a new adviser's political savvy, particularly as he looks to fulfill campaign promises like withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and securing diplomatic deals.
The problem, officials and analysts say, is that like with most elements of his agenda, Trump's views on foreign policy are ever-changing. When Bolton entered his post 17 months ago, Trump was agitating to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran, frustrated with the coterie of advisers who were urging him to remain in the accord.
Get the Senate and we could get it done. If it has that broad support among Dems then it can be done (especially since the Senators will all have a very strong incentive to bring on a guaranteed 2 new Dem Senators. Vulnerable ones immediately become that much less vulnerable).
This and PR need to happen within the first few weeks.Get the Senate and we could get it done. If it has that broad support among Dems then it can be done (especially since the Senators will all have a very strong incentive to bring on a guaranteed 2 new Dem Senators. Vulnerable ones immediately become that much less vulnerable).
<3 everyone except Sinema. But I can't hate her because she has the best style in the Senate.
WHY ARE PEOPLE SO ILL-INFORMED
It was close enough that it could have been a small factor.
Texas Republican state representative: Let's abolish local control over a heavily Democratic & Latino city because we don't like how they vote. Austin is already chopped up among 6 congressional districts so that white Republicans like Cain can dominate its federal representation
I voted in the second season of American Idol when my older brothers friend was in it.
Given the poll just posted above, it could also just be because he's as dry as burnt toast. If he is an apparent progressive firebrand of an incumbent and a poll thinks your competitor is overwhelmingly more liberal and a better fighter for the party...come on, man.The only reason he would lose is because his opponent is a fucking Kennedy. It's 100% based on name recognition and family dynasties....the things that are supposedly so horrible. Having to run against a Kennedy in a Democratic primary is a rock and a hard place situation.
The tension in Texas will be like North Carolina. There you've already seen local ordinances overturned by the state but you'll see that fight get vicious, especially as Dems begin to take a good run at things. Maybe they could pass an ordinance where every incorporated city over 300,000 or so is administered by legislature-appointed stooges.
Also, important note is that it possibly keeps Pompeo from thinking of running in the KS Senate race. I would like Kobach to at the very least having a fighting chance in that primary, thank you very much. :p
So what exactly needs to change here for those to improve for her?Warren's early state polling outside of the CBS YouGov polls actually doesn't look as good as her national trend. I find Emerson's IVR and sample frame weird, so don't know how much stock to put in their NH poll.
I think her national movement has been real and substantial. But the four early contests aren't that strong for her right now.
NH and Nevada seem to be stronger for Sanders.
Iowa seems to be all over the place
SC is Biden's to lose.