Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

[GSU&UT 1798]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

But of course the entire conversation went right over your head.

Taxing the middle class is not fighting that fight. Taxing the middle class as a way to fund progressive policies is business as usual. But if you like status quo, more power to you. Some of us want to change things.

How is paying a huge insurance premium every month not a tax? I'd rather pay that plus double if it meant I never ever had to deal with billing after seeing the doctor/going to a hospital again. 

[BradInATX 9208]

17 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

How is paying a huge insurance premium every month not a tax? I'd rather pay that plus double if it meant I never ever had to deal with billing after seeing the doctor/going to a hospital again. 

LOL we're not even talking about health insurance. Settle down. Pay attention.

Edited August 13, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13208]

57 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Taxing the middle class is not fighting that fight.

That's not what this proposal is. The vast majority of the revenue generated from a 0.5% FTT would come from the wealthy, as I sourced. The impact on normal Americans would be minimal.

You have provided no sources otherwise, just right-wing talking points.

[bad_teammate 13208]

84% of stocks are owned by the Top 10%.

Ignore the Republican, people, he just wants Mitt Romney to come sweep him off his feet.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bernie is absolutely right here regarding the media asking the wrong questions.

 

[UTDD 362]

4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

They wouldn't lose much money, much less than they are going to lose in capital gains and/or income taxes on those investment vehicles. 

I don't know, some very good growth funds may have turnover rates that easily can exceed 200-250% as a turnover rate.  I've seen some with 600-800%, and granted, no one should be stupid enough to have their entire portfolio allocated to a high turnover growth fund, but still...(low cost index funds are still great for a lot of newbie investors btw)  A person with say 1,000 invested in a 250 percent turnover investment vehicle is paying $25 year after year and compounded it would add up in their retirement.  Ok sure, it's just $25 but 2.5% of your investment being taken out is not chump change for some people and I would object to this $25 just as much as I would a $25 extra fee for someone making under 20k a year as a low income person if it isn't necessary.  It's so easy to say for example what's an extra 20 dollars for a struggling person paying just a tad more on their income tax, but 20 dollars is still something important to somebody with a real need. 

I don't think you should create disincentives for people to try and save for retirement when it is incredibly simple to create a sliding scale that either 1) slightly minimizes the overall revenue being raised by creating say valuation and/or a small trade limit per year exemption (to in theory allow people to save their assets if the markets tanks, etc) or 2) slightly tweak the numbers to target specific types of trading (frequency and volume) that actually would work better, help deter the wild speculative trading that created already at least one macro financial crisis, and likely raise more money.  The objections of the rich and powerful in all three of these scenarios would not really be all that different anyway, as they will attack any proposal of this nature.  The odds of what I am proposing as an alternative possibility would not be all that different (in terms of having a chance to actually pass as a real law in America) than what is being proposed now, and it's definitely much better optics as a champion against Wall Street and being for the little guy, etc.

[UTDD 362]

5 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Yeah, that's sort of how I'm seeing it. It's essentially a flat tax. If I've got 100k invested in SPY and you have 5 million, every time the fund rebalances you and I both get hit with half of one percent of whatever we have invested. You with your 5 million are already probably getting lower overhead on your trades (and probably have it in something with much lower annual cost than SPY anyway). 

So I guess Sanders is a big flat tax guy. That's strange for him.

As you said, there are certainly ways to target institutional investors, money middle-men, etc. without hitting people in their 401ks or SEP IRAs etc. It just doesn't seem Bernie is interested in that level of detail. I haven't seen Warren's plan but I'll take a look when I have a chance. Would love to see something along the lines of an FTT, but more intelligently constructed. I get going after wall street and the people that make money off of doing nothing but moving money. But it's really poor optics to tax the 401ks of working Americans who are being responsible and putting away money for retirement in order to help people who willingly entered a contract for their student loans (my wife and her $50k remaining included). Especially in the rust belt with a lot of folks who don't have student loan debt but have union pensions or retirement accounts that would lose money on this. Trump would love this. Bernie, the gift that keeps on giving..

Yeah, I think it's actually incredibly simple to create a plan that could easily target specific types of trades while exempting low valued investments as one example.  You could in the very simplest sense just reverse how an income tax works (this is just one iteration of basically dozens of ways to do something like this) and exempt the very tiny investors.  We all know who the real speculative traders that are out there that only exist to make trades and move money -- go ahead and target them.  Politically, this kind of plan would have almost the same resistance from Wall Street as one with a plan taxing these tiny investors (they won't care about them anyway) and in some ways would have fiercer resistance, as including them will allow them to sound the alarm bells in a much stronger way to influence tiny investors against such a law.

[BradInATX 9208]

That's not what this proposal is. The vast majority of the revenue generated from a 0.5% FTT would come from the wealthy, as I sourced. The impact on normal Americans would be minimal.
You have provided no sources otherwise, just right-wing talking points.

Lol. You keep trying. I don't have serious conversations with non-serious people.

[BradInATX 9208]

Yeah, I think it's actually incredibly simple to create a plan that could easily target specific types of trades while exempting low valued investments as one example.  You could in the very simplest sense just reverse how an income tax works (this is just one iteration of basically dozens of ways to do something like this) and exempt the very tiny investors.  We all know who the real speculative traders that are out there that only exist to make trades and move money -- go ahead and target them.  Politically, this kind of plan would have almost the same resistance from Wall Street as one with a plan taxing these tiny investors (they won't care about them anyway) and in some ways would have fiercer resistance, as including them will allow them to sound the alarm bells in a much stronger way to influence tiny investors against such a law.

Yep. The government knows what your combined retirement accounts are worth, and they know your income. It'd be easy to carve out anyone not in the top 10% or whatever. Which makes me really perplexed why Bernie doesn't do it. He's obviously opposed to a flat income tax so why is he proposing a flat tax in this case? Is he scared of wall street? Was his plan poorly conceived? Or is he just playing to his base who are incapable of dealing with nuance and just want to hear "tax Wall Street!!". Shrug. It's a loser in the general. Hopefully the actual nominee does better.

 

[David Dennison 18892]

15 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Yep. The government knows what your combined retirement accounts are worth, and they know your income. It'd be easy to carve out anyone not in the top 10% or whatever. Which makes me really perplexed why Bernie doesn't do it. He's obviously opposed to a flat income tax so why is he proposing a flat tax in this case? Is he scared of wall street? Was his plan poorly conceived? Or is he just playing to his base who are incapable of dealing with nuance and just want to hear "tax Wall Street!!". Shrug. It's a loser in the general. Hopefully the actual nominee does better.

Or he knows the people who are going to vote for him don't give a shit about an FTT. The people who care were never going to vote for him anyway.

Edited August 13, 2019 by David Dennison

[BradInATX 9208]

So I did some reading - from what I can find, Warren's plans to fund student loan cancellation (and a bunch of other programs) are wealth taxes on the ultra-rich, and a tax on corporate profits above $100 million. I don't think she's proposed an FTT at all, at least not anywhere I can find. That puts Bernie alone as the only candidate that wants a flat tax on the stock market.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Or he knows the people who are going to vote for him don't give a shit about an FTT. The people who care were never going to vote for him anyway.

That's probably true. His voters are more about feelings and emotions than they are policy. NTTAWWT.

[David Dennison 18892]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

That's probably true. His voters are more about feelings and emotions than they are policy. NTTAWWT.

They also probably believe it's good policy.

[BradInATX 9208]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They also probably believe it's good policy.

I doubt it. His biggest supporter on this board can't even grasp the nuances of it nor does he understand how an FTT would much, much more severely penalize 401k investors than it would people who own private companies like the Koch brothers. The tax as Bernie proposed would literally have cost the Koch brothers zero dollars to-date for all of their holdings in their company (the initial acquisition of stock is not taxed in his plan). It would hit the majority of 401k holders daily, weekly, monthly as mutual funds rebalance.

But regardless, the idea is not going to go anywhere. There's no way the eventual candidate is going to adopt Bernie's plan. The sound bite of "they want to tax your pension and pay off student loans for a bunch of liberal arts majors in California" would absolutely hand Trump the rust belt and the presidency. The other candidates are smarter than that.

Anyway, I'll let you guys continue your Bernie party.

Edited August 13, 2019 by BradInATX

[David Dennison 18892]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

I doubt it. His biggest supporter on this board can't even grasp the nuances of it nor does he understand how an FTT would much, much more severely penalize 401k investors than it would people who own private companies like the Koch brothers. The tax as Bernie proposed would literally have cost the Koch brothers zero dollars for all of their holdings in their company. It would hit the majority of 401k holders daily, weekly, monthly as mutual funds rebalance.

But regardless, the idea is not going to go anywhere. There's no way the eventual candidate is going to adopt Bernie's plan. The sound bite of "they want to take your pension and pay off student loans for a bunch of liberal arts majors in California" would absolutely hand Trump the rust belt and the presidency. The other candidates are smarter than that.

So what?

[BradInATX 9208]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So what?

I mean, if you're in favor of taxing the middle class and the more than 50% of the country who are responsibly saving for retirement in order to pay off loans in which the borrower willingly and knowingly entered the contract for said loan, then there's not much to talk about. That's awful, both in terms of election viability and general policy.

All you have to do is put some thresholds in to only capture institutional traders and algo traders, and you avoid all of that. It seems so easy and yet..

Edited August 13, 2019 by BradInATX

[David Dennison 18892]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I mean, if you're in favor of taxing the middle class and the more than 50% of the country who are responsibly saving for retirement in order to pay off loans in which the borrower willingly and knowingly entered the contract for said loan, then there's not much to talk about. That's awful, both in terms of election viability and general policy.

Again, the tax in question pales in comparison to what is already taken from these investment vehicles in the form of income and capital gains taxes. I have no problem with it at all.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Again, the tax in question pales in comparison to what is already taken from these investment vehicles in the form of income and capital gains taxes. I have no problem with it at all.

Then let's just tax everyone's income an additional half percent. It pales in comparison to what they're already paying in income taxes and SSI. 

[David Dennison 18892]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Then let's just tax everyone's income an additional half percent. It pales in comparison to what they're already paying in income taxes and SSI. 

I would be fine with that.

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I would be fine with that.

Fair enough.

[David Dennison 18892]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Fair enough.

I should point out that I also realize I am in the minority and that it's an understatement to say a half percent income tax increase across the board is politically impossible.

[bad_teammate 13208]

You will notice that Brad has still yet to provide a single cited fact in support of his Republican talking points. It's common for Republicans to dismiss others as being all about "feelings not facts" and then offer zero facts and operate entirely on feelings. It's how Republicans tick.

The FTT would have some small cost on the middle/upper-middle class. Bernie is not shy about saying that the middle class needs to pay taxes. He does not promise free shit for everyone paid only by the rich. He is a universalist thinker in class issues and social welfare programs. Everyone benefits and everyone pays.

Should we have a wealth tax? Absolutely, we should.
And Bernie has advocated for higher taxes on the wealthy for his entire life. Here's a 2014 estate tax hike proposal that took a few seconds to find.

If anyone wants to argue that Bernie would oppose other forms of wealth tax... lol

[BradInATX 9208]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I should point out that I also realize I am in the minority and that it's an understatement to say a half percent income tax increase across the board is politically impossible.

Yeah, I mean we've gone a bit circular. I'd have no problem with an 0.5% flat tax increase to pay for a public healthcare option or other programs that are net positives towards the greater good. I'd much prefer to see something much more progressive than flat, of course. But regardless of how you or I feel about it, it's political suicide. 

Now that I think about it, maybe that's why Bernie proposed it in an FTT vs. a flat tax increase. He probably realizes it will hit the middle class too (but largely not the lower income folks), but it's packaged in a way that's less of an immediate hard no from the electorate at-large. I still think it would get turned into political dynamite by his opponent in the general. I mean they'd probably caricaturize it to be "worse" than it already is. But nonetheless, interesting conversation. Thanks.

Edited August 13, 2019 by BradInATX

[David Dennison 18892]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You will notice that Brad has still yet to provide a single cited fact in support of his Republican talking points. It's common for Republicans to dismiss others as being all about "feelings not facts" and then offer zero facts and operate entirely on feelings. It's how Republicans tick.

The FTT would have some small cost on the middle/upper-middle class. Bernie is not shy about saying that the middle class needs to pay taxes. He does not promise free shit for everyone paid only by the rich. He is a universalist thinker in class issues and social welfare programs. Everyone benefits and everyone pays.

Should we have a wealth tax? Absolutely, we should.
And Bernie has advocated for higher taxes on the wealthy for his entire life. Here's a 2014 estate tax hike proposal that took a few seconds to find.

If anyone wants to argue that Bernie would oppose other forms of wealth tax... lol

I'd love to know his strategy for getting any of this passed into law.

 

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You will notice that Brad has still yet to provide a single cited fact in support of his Republican talking points. It's common for Republicans to dismiss others as being all about "feelings not facts" and then offer zero facts and operate entirely on feelings. It's how Republicans tick.

The FTT would have some small cost on the middle/upper-middle class. Bernie is not shy about saying that the middle class needs to pay taxes. He does not promise free shit for everyone paid only by the rich. He is a universalist thinker in class issues and social welfare programs. Everyone benefits and everyone pays.

Should we have a wealth tax? Absolutely, we should.
And Bernie has advocated for higher taxes on the wealthy for his entire life. Here's a 2014 estate tax hike proposal that took a few seconds to find.

If anyone wants to argue that Bernie would oppose other forms of wealth tax... lol

[bad_teammate 13208]

When someone pretends to know with certainty what is and what is not "political suicide", you can safely discount the validity of that person's opinion by 30-60%. Confidence is not competence, especially when it's not paired with sources or data.

People don't mind paying taxes to receive services.

Republicans like Brad? No, of course not. They'll vote against it every time, but we don't need 80% of the vote, we need 51%.*

(*obviously complicated by the EC and other things regarding vote distribution, but the general point is that democratic change requires only a simple or strong majority, not an overwhelming one)

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

When someone pretends to know with certainty what is and what is not "political suicide", you can safely discount the validity of that person's opinion by 30-60%. Confidence is not competence, especially when it's not paired with sources or data.

People don't mind paying taxes to receive services.

Republicans like Brad? No, of course not. They'll vote against it every time, but we don't need 80% of the vote, we need 51%.*

(*obviously complicated by the EC and other things regarding vote distribution, but the general point is that democratic change requires only a simple or strong majority, not an overwhelming one)

You realize that the guy on your side that you're trying to get to high-five you in your little passive aggressive anti-Brad tantrum said himself no more than 10 posts ago (before I did, actually) that an across-the-board tax hike is "politically impossible", right?

Rude.

Edited August 13, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13208]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I'd love to know his strategy for getting any of this passed into law.

An influx of progressive representatives pushed into power by millions of working class people and people of color brought into the political process who are currently not participating. A nationwide, 50-state, grassroots movement to energize the people to force the corrupt DC elite into making the necessary changes.

You're accepting the right-wing frame for how things exist, a frame promoted by the Republicans and conservative Democrats and Pelosi-Democrats. You see what's in front of you right now and extrapolate it infinitely into the future. It's a failing.

[bad_teammate 13208]

Just now, BradInATX said:

You realize that the guy you're trying to get to high-five you in your little passive aggressive tantrum said himself no more than 10 posts ago (before I did, actually) that an across-the-board tax hike is "politically impossible", right?

And it's equally stupid when he says it, Republican. He's a Pelosi-hugger, I'm not interested in his high fives.

[David Dennison 18892]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

An influx of progressive representatives pushed into power by millions of working class people and people of color brought into the political process who are currently not participating. A nationwide, 50-state, grassroots movement to energize the people to force the corrupt DC elite into making the necessary changes.

You're accepting the right-wing frame for how things exist, a frame promoted by the Republicans and conservative Democrats and Pelosi-Democrats. You see what's in front of you right now and extrapolate it infinitely into the future. It's a failing.

It's reality. He is going to have a Republican held Senate for at least the first two years of his presidency. Does he have a plan to deal with that?

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

And it's equally stupid when he says it, Republican. He's a Pelosi-hugger, I'm not interested in his high fives.

LOL

Oh, you.

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by BradInATX

[David Dennison 18892]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

And it's equally stupid when he says it, Republican. He's a Pelosi-hugger, I'm not interested in his high fives.

Well, she's going to be the Speaker of the House for the 117th Congress. You're going to have to deal with her.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

An influx of progressive representatives pushed into power by millions of working class people and people of color brought into the political process who are currently not participating. A nationwide, 50-state, grassroots movement to energize the people to force the corrupt DC elite into making the necessary changes.

You're accepting the right-wing frame for how things exist, a frame promoted by the Republicans and conservative Democrats and Pelosi-Democrats. You see what's in front of you right now and extrapolate it infinitely into the future. It's a failing.

I always go back to Trump’s Wall when people ask, “How are you going to make this happen?”  Most people, including Trump, never believed in the Wall but we had Chuck Schumer handing Trump $25B for a border Wall no one wanted over a year ago.

The presidency can open so many doors and create opportunities for political leverage that are currently unimaginable to most people.   

[bad_teammate 13208]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It's reality. He is going to have a Republican held Senate for at least the first two years of his presidency. Does he have a plan to deal with that?

Perhaps, but it's not certain. Neither is it certain that those Republicans cannot be influenced by overwhelming grassroots pressure from within their state.

You don't know. You feel certain. You express certainty. But you don't know.

How confident were you on 11/7/16 that Hillary would win? Be honest.

[bad_teammate 13208]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I always go back to Trump’s Wall when people ask, “How are you going to make this happen?”  Most people, including Trump, never believed in the Wall but we had Chuck Schumer handing Trump $25B for a border Wall no one wanted over a year ago.

The presidency can open so many doors and create opportunities for political leverage that are currently unimaginable to most people.   

Especially when those people desperately do not want the things being discussed to happen.

DD and Brad do not want a nation in which Bernie is using the bully pulpit of the White House to rabble-rouse. The idea President Sanders holding a 100k+ rally in a vulnerable Republican's district terrifies these people.

[David Dennison 18892]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Perhaps, but it's not certain. Neither is it certain that those Republicans cannot be influenced by overwhelming grassroots pressure from within their state.

You don't know. You feel certain. You express certainty. But you don't know.

How confident were you on 11/7/16 that Hillary would win? Be honest.

Not very, mainly because of Comey's October surprise.

Also, what overwhelming grassroots pressure are you talking about? If Donald Trump can't provoke it, can anyone?

[David Dennison 18892]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I always go back to Trump’s Wall when people ask, “How are you going to make this happen?”  Most people, including Trump, never believed in the Wall but we had Chuck Schumer handing Trump $25B for a border Wall no one wanted over a year ago.

The presidency can open so many doors and create opportunities for political leverage that are currently unimaginable to most people.   

And why did he do that?

[bad_teammate 13208]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Also, what overwhelming grassroots pressure are you talking about?

Millions of politically active people pushing for progressive policy and progressive politicians. Putting hard pressure on centrist/center-right Democrats and all Republicans by donating to challengers, knocking on doors, calling, texting, and showing up at offices.

Are you asking how democracy works? Are you that deeply confused?

Quote

If Donald Trump can't provoke it, can anyone?

Yes, of course. What the fuck are you talking about?

Is Donald Trump the Platonic ideal of a popular movement leader or something? lol 

[David Dennison 18892]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Millions of politically active people pushing for progressive policy and progressive politicians. Putting hard pressure on centrist/center-right Democrats and all Republicans by donating to challengers, knocking on doors, calling, texting, and showing up at offices.

Are you asking how democracy works? Are you that deeply confused?

Yes, of course. What the fuck are you talking about?

Is Donald Trump the Platonic ideal of a popular movement leader or something? lol 

Why hasn't that grass roots pressure materialized?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Dennison’s troll game is strong today.  So many ‘just asking questions’?

[bad_teammate 13208]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Why hasn't that grass roots pressure materialized?

I'm going to treat this question like you're actually interested. I don't think you are, but I'm going to try.

The short answer: It actually did, it brought Obama and a Dem Congress into power, and then Obama smothered it in the crib.

It can happen again, and fairly easily.

Turnout for the 2016 election was a 20-year low. 55.4% of voting-age citizens cast a ballot. This was an election in which probably $3B was spent on ads and marketing and campaigning.

Who are those non-voters? They're exactly the people we need to enact progressive change.

- They are young (<50)
- They are people of color
- They are not highly paid
- They are not highly educated
- Only 52% have a credit card
- Only 37% have a retirement account
- They are primarily Dem/Dem-leaning
- They dislike both parties (but Republicans (hi Brad!) more)
- Think government efforts to help poverty are good

Which candidate's current voting base does that sound like?

[henrygandorf 29191]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Perhaps, but it's not certain. Neither is it certain that those Republicans cannot be influenced by overwhelming grassroots pressure from within their state.

well this is adorable.

[David Dennison 18892]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I'm going to treat this question like you're actually interested. I don't think you are, but I'm going to try.

The short answer: It actually did, it brought Obama and a Dem Congress into power, and then Obama smothered it in the crib.

It can happen again, and fairly easily.

Turnout for the 2016 election was a 20-year low. 55.4% of voting-age citizens cast a ballot. This was an election in which probably $3B was spent on ads and marketing and campaigning.

Who are those non-voters? They're exactly the people we need to enact progressive change.

- They are young (<50)
- They are people of color
- They are not highly paid
- They are not highly educated
- Only 52% have a credit card
- Only 37% have a retirement account
- They are primarily Dem/Dem-leaning
- They dislike both parties (but Republicans (hi Brad!) more)
- Think government efforts to help poverty are good

Which candidate's current voting base does that sound like?

Bernie Sanders isn't going to be the nominee.

[henrygandorf 29191]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm going to treat this question like you're actually interested. I don't think you are, but I'm going to try.

The short answer: It actually did, it brought Obama and a Dem Congress into power, and then Obama smothered it in the crib.

It can happen again, and fairly easily.

Turnout for the 2016 election was a 20-year low. 55.4% of voting-age citizens cast a ballot. This was an election in which probably $3B was spent on ads and marketing and campaigning.

Who are those non-voters? They're exactly the people we need to enact progressive change.

- They are young (<50)
- They are people of color
- They are not highly paid
- They are not highly educated
- Only 52% have a credit card
- Only 37% have a retirement account
- They are primarily Dem/Dem-leaning
- They dislike both parties (but Republicans (hi Brad!) more)
- Think government efforts to help poverty are good

Which candidate's current voting base does that sound like?

solid pivot.

[bad_teammate 13208]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

well this is adorable.

How is our favorite, bestest boy grandson Pete going to get things done?

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Bernie Sanders isn't going to be the nominee.

lol just full-on troll shit

[bad_teammate 13208]

 

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

solid pivot.

It's not a pivot, it's obvious history. Major grassroots movements make huge differences.

- It got Obama and a Dem Supermajority into office in 2008
- While largely astroturfed, the Tea Party revolutionized the entire Republican Party and led to Donald Trump becoming president

Are you arguing that grassroots movements are impossible?

[David Dennison 18892]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How is our favorite, bestest boy grandson Pete going to get things done?

He probably isn't, at least not legislatively.

Any Democrat who wins in 2020 is going to be severely hamstrung by the Senate. The amount of grassroots pressure required to move Republicans in the Senate hasn't been seen in decades.

[bad_teammate 13208]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The amount of grassroots pressure required to move Republicans in the Senate hasn't been seen in decades.

OK... so? And?

It's possible to make happen and it's the only way to get these things done.

[bad_teammate 13208]

DD is the fucking John Delaney of this board

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, David Dennison said:

He probably isn't, at least not legislatively.

Any Democrat who wins in 2020 is going to be severely hamstrung by the Senate. The amount of grassroots pressure required to move Republicans in the Senate hasn't been seen in decades.

You lack imagination.