• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Teggy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,892
"Accumulated private capital is the engine of growth for the future"

Yes, that's why these people sit on piles of cash and always have way more money than they can spend, because they are pouring accumulated wealth into the economy.

And I'm not sure where he's getting a reduction of 50% in wealth, pretty sure that's not part of her plan.
 

OmniOne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,063
"Accumulated private capital is the engine of growth for the future"

Yes, that's why these people sit on piles of cash and always have way more money than they can spend, because they are pouring accumulated wealth into the economy.

And I'm not sure where he's getting a reduction of 50% in wealth, pretty sure that's not part of her plan.

Why would the barons just go and lie like that?

If two cents takes 50% of their wealth they must be worse off than we all thought.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
chart_ranked_voting_graphic_4.jpg
I feel like this is of relevance to Iowa and it's dumb caucus system.
 

DinosaurusRex

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,953
"I wanted to look you in the eye and find out if you are human"
"Well thank you that's-"
"I didn't say that's what I saw"
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,606
Is this a case of "not learning" or being complicit in the act of pretending not to learn and then feigning surprise once Lucy pulls the football away from them for the umpteenth time? Because I'm more inclined to believe that it's the latter. I can only swallow so much purported naïveté before I question whether this is simply them acting out their intended role in a mutually beneficial dance.

Just to be clear then -- the plan for the NC Democratic legislators was to publicly oppose a draconian Republican budget bill, but then attend a 9/11 ceremony after being told no budget vote would be held, secretly knowing that the vote would actually be held while they were away so that the Republicans could pass the budget (that the Dems would now have to apparently support?) without them being present, and then act outraged about it all?
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Plan O'Clock!



This parts seems HUGE:

Increase economic growth in the long term and reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next ten years.

Crazy how with liberal tax and spend policy, while deficit reduction isn't a goal onto itself, it just ends up happening anyway.

It's almost like the starve the beast mentality pushed by Very Serious People in the media is fucking wrong and shouldn't be treated with any legitimacy.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,885
Just to be clear then -- the plan for the NC Democratic legislators was to publicly oppose a draconian Republican budget bill, but then attend a 9/11 ceremony after being told no budget vote would be held, secretly knowing that the vote would actually be held while they were away so that the Republicans could pass the budget (that the Dems would now have to apparently support?) without them being present, and then act outraged about it all?

We're firmly in Bitch Eating Crackers territory, with all the internet "Socialists" whining to themselves about how they would bang shoes on desks and say mean things, and that somehow would make things turn out differently.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
Yeh, but I don't expect by the time we get to Iowa Harris will be anywhere near that. And Mayor Pete is kind of over as well.

Selzer has said she wants to know what's happening instead of digital caucuses, she has been polling with that as part of it until it was pulled.

I do kind of appreciate that Warren is commissioning independent economic analysis of some of her plans, even though you can make economic analysis say whatever you want lol.
 
Oct 27, 2017
17,973
That question to Pelosi "regret not bringing the House back in August to keep the flame lit...", seriously is this a troll question? Bills had already been passed in the House. And yeah, let's see them ask McConnell (or Trump) this question, in this way.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
We're firmly in Bitch Eating Crackers territory, with all the internet "Socialists" whining to themselves about how they would bang shoes on desks and say mean things, and that somehow would make things turn out differently.
I'm wondering what the rules would have been if all the Democrats in the House had just decided to bolt out of the room as soon as they figured out what was going on. There weren't enough Republicans to have quorum on their own.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
That question to Pelosi "regret not bringing the House back in August to keep the flame lit...", seriously is this a troll question? Bills had already been passed in the House. And yeah, let's see them ask McConnell (or Trump) this question, in this way.
Anyone remember when Boehner got all huffy when he was asked when the House would be passing some bill that already passed the Senate, and he was like "we already passed that bill! when's the Senate going to do their job???"

The House did pass a version of that bill - the year before, in a different session.


There it is.

Pelosi will still be blamed for blocking the impeachment though, even after it passes. Then it'll be her fault for the Senate not voting to convict.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,885
I'm wondering what the rules would have been if all the Democrats in the House had just decided to bolt out of the room as soon as they figured out what was going on. There weren't enough Republicans to have quorum on their own.

They only needed 40 votes to override. There were enough Repubs there to have a quorum, regardless, from what I read on News & Observer
 

Kmonk

#TeamThierry
Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,688
US
I'm wondering what the rules would have been if all the Democrats in the House had just decided to bolt out of the room as soon as they figured out what was going on. There weren't enough Republicans to have quorum on their own.


I had the same question, but have been having trouble getting clarity on the point.

My assumption is that quorum is based on the members in attendance when the session is called to order. So even if you bolt out of the room after the session begins, you are still counted as 'present'.


They only needed 40 votes to override. There were enough Repubs there to have a quorum, regardless, from what I read on News & Observer


I think this is incorrect. My understanding is that quorum is 61 members, and only 55 Repubs were in attendance.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
They only needed 40 votes to override. There were enough Repubs there to have a quorum, regardless, from what I read on News & Observer
61 votes (bare majority) are needed for a quorum, and then you would need 60% of those present to override a veto.

There were 64 members present in total, meaning they actually just needed 39 votes to override - but that's less relevant, the only reason they did it this way is because if the full House had been in session they wouldn't have been close to the numbers they needed.


Guessing she realizes Bernie's bill (whether she thinks it's ideal or not) probably isn't going to pass the House and Senate, so it might be better for her politically to make vague references to it so she can claim whatever bill would pass under her is a victory rather than a compromise.
 

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,475


At this point i think a public option is the only thing thats going to fly with voters but we will see how that perception alters over time

The amount of propaganda and scare tactics that will be put out by private health care industry and advocates will hit a fever pitch i imagine and I expect many moderates and conservatives to line up with that message
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
I feel like she just released something on healthcare so that there's... something on healthcare. lol.
Because she knows that a core part of her support will not accept a role for private insurance, but a large part of the Democratic base do not want to end private health insurance, while both of these support bases think "Medicare for All" means "whatever I want to happen to healthcare."

I also think Warren is intelligent enough to know that she wouldn't be able to dismantle and rebuild the US healthcare system in a single term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.