Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, bad_teammate said:

Bloomberg has been so pathetic that the only thing that makes sense in this hellworld is that he shoots to #1 and sweeps all remaining states.

#NoBrisket

Liz is going to fuck him up on outlawing the Big Gulps.

giphy.gif

 

  • Like 3
Posted

Liz should be able to beat Trump. She can go toe to toe with him. And while many policies are a little far left, she also has solid plans to reign in corporations run amok. I wish she had a shot.

  • Like 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Amy is going to physically assault Pete and I will pay her bail.

She HATES him so much and it was obvious in the other debates. She has no respect that he was only a mayor and is running for president.

Posted
Just now, GSU&UT said:

She HATES him so much and it was obvious in the other debates. She has no respect that he was only a mayor and is running for president.

She was the salutatorian with thick ankles who the teachers didn't like while Pete buttered them up and got valedictorian over her unearned.

  • Like 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Liz should be able to beat Trump. She can go toe to toe with him. And while many policies are a little far left, she also has solid plans to reign in corporations run amok. I wish she had a shot.

If she wanted to be president so bad she shouldn't have been born a woman

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

Bernie wins the nomination, and in the first debate, the moderator asks Bernie, “Are you a socialist and are you going to raise taxes?”

Bernie says, “Yes and Yes.”

That will be the end of the debate and the election will be over. Trump can pull out and wank his little mushroom on live TV and it won’t matter. 

Nope. Bernie can say I will only raise taxes on the top one percent and I’m a socialist like FDR was socialist putting forth socialist programs like social security. 
 

And with that the debate will only be over for people who would have voted for trump no matter what anyway. 

Edited by JimmyJames
  • Like 1
Posted

First of all,

 

I respect that we’re all democrats, but don’t you guys worry that by nominating Bernie as the democrats challenger for the presidency that we are putting the house majority at risk?
 

a trump presidency is much more difficult to stomach when the psycho has full control of government. 

Posted

This is the first debate I might rewatch, because I think there were some important policy and values moments under the bloodshed.

One of them was all of them attacking Sanders's plan to force major companies to have workers on the boards. All of them were dismissive of it (Bloomberg and Pete being the most Republican about it), which draws a much bigger distinction than most of what was said. Same is true of Sanders not backing away from environmental protections when challenged and Warren blinking on mining public lands when challenged.

Posted
2 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

First of all,

 

I respect that we’re all democrats, but don’t you guys worry that by nominating Bernie as the democrats challenger for the presidency that we are putting the house majority at risk?
 

a trump presidency is much more difficult to stomach when the psycho has full control of government. 

I've seen this suggested a few times. What about Bernie do you think makes it harder for Dems down ballot? Why would Bloomberg be better for maintaining/picking up House seats? 

Posted
37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Same is true of Sanders not backing away from environmental protections when challenged and Warren blinking on mining public lands when challenged.

The public lands / mining question might be the best question of the night. I lived in Nevada for a decade and the Northern part of the state runs on mining (which is on BLM land). 

Mining isn't going away. The Green Energy of the future will require massive storage needs and the minerals required will be mined. We need to be real careful about throwing statements about "ending all mining on public lands" and "stopping all fracking immediately". They sound good, but aren't practical. Amy's thoughts on transitioning were laughed at and harumphed, but she's right. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yeah, Doug from the warehouse needs to review the P&L and talk to our shareholders.

This regarded idea is just another example of a stupid populist vote bait that has no chance of ever passing as law through congress, and would certainly never hold up in the courts.

  • Like 2
Posted
31 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

I've seen this suggested a few times. What about Bernie do you think makes it harder for Dems down ballot? Why would Bloomberg be better for maintaining/picking up House seats? 

It depends on the state imo. Bernie would prob be ok down ballot in union states like Michigan but would be a disaster in a state like Texas. “Socialism,” “communism,” and “raising taxes” would tank Dems in Texas.

I’m not expecting to lose the US house if Bernie is the nominee but we won’t make gains in the Texas legislature like we could have.

Posted

Bernie's Corporate Accountability & Democracy plan rules, actually.

  • Fundamentally shift the wealth of the economy back into the hands of the workers who create it.
  • Give workers an ownership stake in the companies they work for.
  • Break up corrupt corporate mergers and monopolies, including reviewing all mergers that have taken place during the Trump administration and institute new merger guidelines
  • Finally make corporations pay their fair share of taxes by reversing Trump’s corporate tax breaks and closing corporate tax loopholes to raise up to $3 trillion over 10-years.
31 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yeah, Doug from the warehouse needs to review the P&L and talk to our shareholders.

24 minutes ago, NoRagrets said:

This regarded idea is just another example of a stupid populist vote bait that has no chance of ever passing as law through congress, and would certainly never hold up in the courts.

Hell yeah Republican anti-union talking points, you love to see it.

These two posts are actually not different at all from 6th Street's laughable "I love Bloomberg because he did a computer screen for me" post, because it's just elitist garbage. Licking boots, yum yum yum.

 

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, bad_teammate said:

Hell yeah Republican anti-union talking points, you love to see it.

Stupid ideas are stupid regardless of party.

Have you ever served on a board? If you have, you'd see why this is a shitty idea. Smart businesses listen to their employees without having to be told to do so. That doesn't mean Sally from payroll has any fucking clue on what the 5 year growth strategy in the Asian market looks like or switching our inventory from LIFO to FIFO.

  • Like 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Stupid ideas are stupid regardless of party.

Have you ever served on a board? If you have, you'd see why this is a shitty idea. Smart businesses listen to their employees without having to be told to do so. That doesn't mean Sally from payroll has any fucking clue on what the 5 year growth strategy in the Asian market looks like or switching our inventory from LIFO to FIFO.

Pretty sure Germany has a law where workers reps must occupy 50% or 51% of a board's makeup. The idea is that the board doesn't completely fuck over the workers who get absolutely no say when we've been gutting unions since Reagan.

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...