Like I said before, a Kennedy would probably be following the same polling trajectory as Biden is now.
My God NC GOP are the slimiest slimeballs in the union. How an utterly depraved, grossly craven band of sick shits to pull something off like this.
My God NC GOP are the slimiest slimeballs in the union. How an utterly depraved, grossly craven band of sick shits to pull something off like this.
Actually this is Nancy Pelosi's fault
Stop shitting on our dreams dammit!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.
LmaoKennedy's favorability in that poll is fucking insane.
He's at 73-5.
The problem is Trump doesn't care about the laws. He will do it anyway via EO and by the time civil groups file lawsuit, he will have caused enough damage. Then if the case gets assigned to a dipshit judge who will side with Trump, a counter lawsuit will follow and some sane judge will strike it down. Then they hope it goes to Supreme Court where Trump's Supreme Court justices will side with him and Roberts will side with Democrats ending in 5-4 ruling.The federal government wouldn't have the authority to manage local homeless populations. Vagrancy is not a federal crime. Vagrancy could not *be* a federal crime due to the 10th Amendment. Nor are any of the other typical laws used to roust the homeless federal laws. The only things I could think of would be sweeping ICE through or sweeping the DEA through (much more likely to catch something in a given homeless settlement with that), but even that wouldn't have the authority to do more than arrest people breaking federal laws.
What executive order would let him do this? I get the admin loves to flout laws but this would be inventing a whole arm of federal law enforcement whole-cloth.
Honestly speaking though, if there's one commemoration you will expect Republicans to hold sacred beyond politics, it is 9/11. It checks off their neocon ass-tingle, speak in generalized terms about terrorists, and have good photo ops for their base. I don't fault Dems on this tbh.The real problem is that Democrats NEVER FUCKING LEARN that Republicans aren't their friends.
"They promised though!"
(Plus there's also the fact that, according to her anyway, the only Republican she's ever voted for in a presidential election is Ford in 1976, which like... come on.)
The federal government wouldn't have the authority to manage local homeless populations. Vagrancy is not a federal crime. Vagrancy could not *be* a federal crime due to the 10th Amendment. Nor are any of the other typical laws used to roust the homeless federal laws. The only things I could think of would be sweeping ICE through or sweeping the DEA through (much more likely to catch something in a given homeless settlement with that), but even that wouldn't have the authority to do more than arrest people breaking federal laws.
What executive order would let him do this? I get the admin loves to flout laws but this would be inventing a whole arm of federal law enforcement whole-cloth.
Would a Kennedy be electable in Georgia or one of the Carolina states?It's Massachusetts, you could dig up JFK's rotten corpse and that state would elect it to anything it ran for.
Honestly speaking though, if there's one commemoration you will expect Republicans to hold sacred beyond politics, it is 9/11. It checks off their neocon ass-tingle, speak in generalized terms about terrorists, and have good photo ops for their base. I don't fault Dems on this tbh.
La Doñita Pelosi Kinda snapped a bit here, I have to admit:
Has this been posted yet?
They don't report:To answer the question in the tweet: They do, but McConnell is smart enough to shut his mouth and never answer. He just stoically walks past them.
You've got to hand it to Joe Kennedy, he's got people completely gaga for him without knowing an absolute thing about him other than his face and his name.
I dunno. Maybe just keep on trucking.So what exactly needs to change here for those to improve for her?
Actually, the only time Trump ever showed human decency was during the one GOP debate when Cruz tried to hit him on New York values or whatever, and Trump managed to turn it into a thing about 9/11. He's a total sack of shit with zero human empathy, but he managed to play decent in that one moment.
To me, this actually sounds like a good reason to not hand it to him. Lol he didn't do shitYou've got to hand it to Joe Kennedy, he's got people completely gaga for him without knowing an absolute thing about him other than his face and his name.
"Please proceed, Mr. president.""2. One tidbit that stuck out: Parscale is not allowing the RNC to share critical info about President Trump's standing with state parties and down ballot candidates because it might embarrass the president. This ends up hurting down ballot candidates."
Well, they do on twitter.They don't report:
"McConnell dodges questions about XYZ yet again"
Prefacing this with the fact that he is basically the worst person on the planet and has almost zero redeeming qualities, but I think it is important in this context that Trump is a New Yorker, even if the city has nothing but disdain for him. The Republican hypocrisy in which they claim 9/11 while shitting on New Yorkers left and right for being liberal, queer, etc. is utterly disgusting and probably the single most craven thing about them, and I'm glad in that moment Trump called it out for what it was.Actually, the only time Trump ever showed human decency was during the one GOP debate when Cruz tried to hit him on New York values or whatever, and Trump managed to turn it into a thing about 9/11. He's a total sack of shit with zero human empathy, but he managed to play decent in that one moment.
To this day it's the only thing I've ever complimented him on saying the way he did.So like, fuck Trump, but if there was .00001% good in him, it came out there.
GOP house reps are retiring at a rate like they expect to stay the minority there.
As in huge House gains, significant governor wins, losses in the Senate? Currently it's looking like Democrats will hold the House and flip a few governorships (New Hampshire, Vermont seem like the easiest targets. Maybe West Virginia given how hated Justice is/how Manchin has considered running for governor?). Senate is currently a toss-up reliant on flipping every seat currently considered a toss-up/Lean D (Arizona, Colorado, Maine) while holding on to Doug Jones' also currently rated as a toss-up seat, assuming Democrats win the presidency and thus will have a 50/50 + Vice split. They're doing well in special elections in terms of performance when factoring in partisan leanings but it's way too early to say if we'll see another blue wave when the election is over a year away and no one knows who will be leading the ticket for the Democrats. At the very least another seat opened up in Georgia so there's another potential chance for a seat to flip (although it's likely that if one seat flips parties, both Senate seats in Georgia will do that instead of splitting it between the two major parties).
Actually, the only time Trump ever showed human decency was during the one GOP debate when Cruz tried to hit him on New York values or whatever, and Trump managed to turn it into a thing about 9/11. He's a total sack of shit with zero human empathy, but he managed to play decent in that one moment.
He wants to run for president. That's why he's building progressive cred. Not sure all of this is being attributed to him in the media though.
Cuomo vs Newsom 2024: a future to believe inI'm never voting for Newsom in a presidential primary lmao
Biden or Warren are going lose next year's GE and then we'll be stuck with that fucking greasebag in 2024
Shame Jerry brown is somehow too old for this year's primary, he wouldbe been a better alternative than Biden for the people who want a moderate, steady hand.
Have you seen Joe? Just a name's enough.
I'm sorry.Just got an invite to attend the debate tomorrow. :) So excited.
Prefacing this with the fact that he is basically the worst person on the planet and has almost zero redeeming qualities, but I think it is important in this context that Trump is a New Yorker, even if the city has nothing but disdain for him. The Republican hypocrisy in which they claim 9/11 while shitting on New Yorkers left and right for being liberal, queer, etc. is utterly disgusting and probably the single most craven thing about them, and I'm glad in that moment Trump called it out for what it was.
So like, fuck Trump, but if there was .00001% good in him, it came out there.
I'm not even mad at you.Um what a fucking queen
Leftists go sit in a hole and cry
Also that hair
That dress
Wow. She looks younger and more vibrant than autodidact which is basically age 0.
An Israeli Embassy spokesperson, Elad Strohmayer, denied that Israel placed the devices and said: "These allegations are absolute nonsense. Israel doesn't conduct espionage operations in the United States, period."
I don't know why Israel needs to spy on US when GOP basically is their government's lobbyist arm.
Insurance since they know Trump/the GOP are just dumb tools for the ends of the rich. That kind of intel could help you manipulate more efficiently as well.I don't know why Israel needs to spy on US when GOP basically is their government's lobbyist arm.
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.The real problem is that Democrats NEVER FUCKING LEARN that Republicans aren't their friends.
"They promised though!"
My plan would immediately increase Social Security benefits by $200 a month—$2,400 a year—for every current and future Social Security beneficiary in America. This would immediately lift around 4.9 million seniors out of poverty and cut the senior poverty rate by nearly 70%.
- Increases Social Security benefits immediately by $200 a month -- $2,400 a year -- for every current and future Social Security beneficiary in America.
- Updates outdated rules to further increase benefits for lower-income families, women, people with disabilities, public-sector workers, and people of color.
- Finances these changes and extends the solvency of Social Security by nearly two decades by asking the top 2% of families to contribute their fair share to the program.
An independent analysis of my plan from Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, finds that my plan will accomplish all of this and:
- Immediately lift an estimated 4.9 million seniors out of poverty, cutting the senior poverty rate by 68%.
- Produce a "much more progressive Social Security system" by raising contribution requirements only on very high earners and increasing average benefits by nearly 25% for those in the bottom half of the income distribution, as compared to less than 5% for people in the top 10% of the distribution.
- Increase economic growth in the long term and reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next ten years.
My plan ensures that workers who work for a lifetime at low wages do not retire into poverty.
In 1972, Congress enacted a Special Minimum Benefit for Social Security. The benefit was supposed to help people who had earned consistently low wages over many years of work. But it's become harder to qualify for the benefit, and the benefit amount has shrunk in value so it now helps hardly anyone. Today, only 0.6% of all Social Security beneficiaries receive the Special Minimum Benefit, and projections show that no new beneficiaries will receive it this year.
No one who spends 30 years working and contributing to Social Security should retire in poverty. That's why my plan restructures the Special Minimum Benefit so that more people are eligible for it and the benefits are a lot higher. Under my plan, any person who has done 30 years of Social Security-covered work will receive an annual benefit of at least 125% of the federal poverty line when they reach retirement age. That means a baseline of $1,301 a month in 2019 -- plus the $200-a-month across-the-board increase in my plan, for a total of $1,501 a month. That's more than $600-a-month more than what that worker would receive under current law.
My plan will give credit toward the Social Security average lifetime earnings calculation to people who provide 80 hours a month of unpaid care to a child under the age of 6, a dependent with a disability (including a veteran family member), or an elderly relative. For every month of caregiving that meets these requirements, the caregiver will be credited for Social Security purposes with a month of income equal to the monthly average of that year's median annual wage. People can receive an unlimited amount of caregiving credits and can claim these credits retroactively if they have done this kind of caregiving work in the last five years. By giving caregivers credits equal to the median wage that year, this credit will provide a particular boost in benefits to lower-income workers.