Well there are a non-zero number of "progressives" who would waste a vote on tulsi rather than the dem nominee. They are absolute trash frauds, but they exist. Probably on this forum.
-
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 |OT8| WHITE HOUSE ADMITS TO QUID PRO QUO WITH UKRAINE
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
Well there are a non-zero number of "progressives" who would waste a vote on tulsi rather than the dem nominee. They are absolute trash frauds, but they exist. Probably on this forum.
Any President would be dumb to open themselves up like this. No campaign manager would ever suggest it or condone it, it's absolutely reckless with little upside and tremendous downside. It turns the event from being an opportunity for Dems to discuss their platform differences to them being able to unify and attack the President from all sides. Trump is so uniquely unqualified to speak on any topic that the idea of him getting hit from all sides, especially from some 2nd rate candidates who have NOTHING to lose, is madness. Yang, Beto, Castro, and others will see this as their best/only opportunity to ever speak truth to power and they'll be on full attack mode.
Warren is right, but Yang could be right in the future. Krugman has written a lot recently on this.
At the impeachment vote:
"And I want to tell my children how I stood up for an INNOCENT MAN!!!"
True, but its hard the get the GOP to even do that.
Maybe he's having a completely crazy day, but its more than a morning show aberration.
Maybe even an hour-long grandstanding speech to lecture the voters of
tbh that reminds me of some prick GOP State Senator during the vote to legalize gay marriage in Minnesota who made a big deal about how he was still undecided, he was friends with his next-door neighbors (a gay couple) and had seen firsthand the love they had for each other, how he didn't know how he could still look them in the eye if he voted no and finished with something like "I guess we'll see where I stand when we reach the other side"
Fucker still voted no, rot in hell, asshole and I hope your gay friends never spoke to you again
Fucker still voted no, rot in hell, asshole and I hope your gay friends never spoke to you again
Picking Trump National Doral Miami "may seem careless politically, but on the other hand there's tremendous integrity in his boldness and his transparency," said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-North Dakota.
...lol
You hate to see it
See above.
Robots right now are replacing jobs but as of now we have created enough different jobs to offset what robots have automated
The problem is with new tech innovation back in the day it might create a new job in addition to the old instead of just displacing and moving one
But I don't even think we'll be able to keep that up. Truck driving being likely the biggest looming automation threat right now and I have no idea what jobs those drivers will get. It's like the number 1 job in so many states. It would be like if we automated school teachers, where do they go
The problem is with new tech innovation back in the day it might create a new job in addition to the old instead of just displacing and moving one
But I don't even think we'll be able to keep that up. Truck driving being likely the biggest looming automation threat right now and I have no idea what jobs those drivers will get. It's like the number 1 job in so many states. It would be like if we automated school teachers, where do they go
Trump will not get a warm welcome at Benedict or in that area in general...
Real Talk, the whole debate/discussion will turn into Infinity War's Fight on Titan as each Democratic Candidate punches at a different part.
If we get an Ace Attorney style live meltdown, it's going to be here I'd guess
Iook up Lindsay ghram on cspan. Few days ago grilling the Ukraine rep...
Oil oil Iran oil oil oil... Paraphrasing.
Trying to appease the Bush-era Republicans that he pissed off with Syria? Or is that giving Trump too much credit?
I know it's not clear how much leverage we have with the populace on the matter, but the term "McClellan Democrats" feels like succinct summary of their behavior.
I mean, this weird asides usually pop up from some conversation he's had, so it's a fair assessment.
We've all "drilled some dry holes" we wish we could "walk back".
Trump has talked a lot about "securing oil" in various contexts. I don't think he's trying to appeal to neocons (who are angry with him about a variety of foreign policy things that that doesn't solve anyway) - he's just thinking of things in his usual short-sighted/moronic way.
I think those jobs are safer than we think right now. I can't imagine state regulators would want to allow completely autonomous trucks on the road with no driver any time soon.
I totally understand the frustration of a non-government employee thumbing his nose at the Legislative branch of the United States. The Nixon playbook is to seek to get favorable court rulings, right?
There are things that are coming that will absolutely displace jobs, ie autonomous cars, manufacturing. Whether those jobs will show up some other place remains to be seen but I don't think we can rely on conventional wisdom since we've never seen billions of robots enter the workforce before. Who knows, maybe all the truck drivers will become asteroid miners
I'm not sure I follow how McClellan Democrats is being applied here. I'm familiar with the term and its history, but maybe I'm missing something. I'm having a hard time connecting a pro-slavery, barely less than treasonist, minority wing of a party centered in a seceding part of the country to today's big-tent, civil rights inspired, majority party.
No it isn't for the same reason Stein wasn't. Having a chaos agent run as a "third party" only causes the Dem nominee to have to deal with taking hits from the Right as well as taking hits from "left" via an "independent" that's pushing false narratives to advance russian interests.
It's not a good thing at all.
Lincoln and McClellan clashed over McClellan being too cautious with the Union Army.
As Manmademan said, Tulsi won't be running as a good-faith actor, even if she thinks that she is. The underlining accusation here is that her third-party campaign would be supported by foreign interests in an attempt to indirectly support one candidate (Trump) over another (the Democratic nominee). This isn't Ross Perot running a campaign that splits the difference in a intellectually honest way, this is Tusli sabotaging the Democrats for personal gain with the support of a foreign power.
And the Dem nominee. The problem is that Tulsi slots into the top left quadrant, which is where Trump pretended to be in 2016 and where she can pull from both candidates by giving voters their Welfare StatexApartheid State desires.
Yeah, this post below nails the issue with that original tweet. Just saying "hours" doesn't mean a lot of jobs got automated. It just means people found other work (predominantly retail and side gigs, these days).
And this isn't sustainable imo.
That's the connection? Man, that's really weak considering that McClellan Democrats were an actual thing that had stated principles. I think someone got too clever on this one.
She's an Assad Toadie like Tankie Trash Twitter. She absolutely knows she's not acting in good faith.
Yeah, it's as simple as McClellan (as a general) was extremely reticent to attack and routinely misjudged the size of the Confederate Army when planning battles.
It's okay, I'll never tire of seeing bad news for Simply Susan. As I've said 10000 times in PoliEra, her Kavanaugh speech is seared in my brain.
- Status