Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
41 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The problem with a lot of these high profile ex-military guys is they’ve moved into the lobbying and corporate board sector after service, this includes Mattis and Kelly.  Warren would never pick someone with an obvious conflict of interest like that.  In fact, it’s precisely that revolving door she’s trying to close. 

Good point.

If she wants to slow corruption in the military industrial complex she needs to stop the officer to lobbyist revolving door.

Posted

Interdasting. So, the professor asked her to speak at his funeral prior to his death? I'm out of WaPo articles so I can't read it, but is a predilection for harassment why the late professor's wife was his ex-wife?

Posted
17 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Although I"m a shit ton more conservative than all the Dems, it's mostly Warren's style. 

Before her campaign got rolling, I had a bit of a harpy vibe as well (great description, btw).  I liked/respected her as a former UT professor who did great work.  But I get less of a harpy vibe since her campaign has gotten into full swing.

However, I don't feel any need to hang on her every word/tweet/video/debate/appearance, so I may be missing something.  If so, I don't want to know.

Posted

Hmmm, potential harpy vs inchoate bloviating criminal. My hope is that if (and it's a big if) there is a debate or some other meeting she doesn't stoop to the President's tactics. I have no doubt she is witty, but she won't win the name-calling battle. There are several ways to neutralize bullies, but getting in a back and forth is rarely successful and fist-fighting at debates is not allowed. At least I don't think it is.

Posted
15 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Enemies:
- Broads
- Podcasts with broads in them
- Dames
- The Yankees
- That guy who got @JohnLenin before I could register it
- Chicks

chicks with vocal fry

people who say "right?" after declarative sentences

Posted
1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

fist-fighting at debates is not allowed

If they do happen to change the rules, I've got $1k on Liz to beat the shit out of Small Hands Donny.

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Interdasting. So, the professor asked her to speak at his funeral prior to his death? I'm out of WaPo articles so I can't read it, but is a predilection for harassment why the late professor's wife was his ex-wife?

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that you can't be married to a dead person. So maybe that is why she is his ex-wife. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that you can't be married to a dead person. So maybe that is why she is his ex-wife. 

Maybe if she remarried after his death, but this was referring to the funeral and that usually means you are a widow/widower. (Apologies if you were being witty, hard to read tone in text. If so--haha, good one!)

Posted
26 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Maybe if she remarried after his death, but this was referring to the funeral and that usually means you are a widow/widower. (Apologies if you were being witty, hard to read tone in text. If so--haha, good one!)

I love you Mrs Whiggins. 

Posted

Playing scared is not good strategy. Own the truth and convince people it's good.

Because it is.

Being evasive only makes it seem like there's something to hide, when there is not. We SHOULD eliminate high private insurance premiums and replace them with low taxes. That is good and nothing to hide from.

  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Playing scared is not good strategy. Own the truth and convince people it's good.

Because it is.

Being evasive only makes it seem like there's something to hide, when there is not. We SHOULD eliminate high private insurance premiums and replace them with low taxes. That is good and nothing to hide from.

What if the truth looks like a 20% payroll tax. 

  • Like 1
Posted

The “how are you going to pay for it?” schtick is a great look in the Democratic Primary.  It’s bizzaro world how universal healthcare is being attacked by democrats as a campaign strategy. 

Posted
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Playing scared is not good strategy. Own the truth and convince people it's good.

Because it is.

Being evasive only makes it seem like there's something to hide, when there is not. We SHOULD eliminate high private insurance premiums and replace them with low taxes. That is good and nothing to hide from.

Exactly.

Imaging thinking it's smart to play defense against Trump in the Democratic primary, 3 1/2 months before Iowa. 

Do people think Trump and the GOP are going to play by any sort of rules during the GE? They could literally make an attack right now about Warren and the threat of a middle class tax hike.  They don't need a soundbite to greenlight whatever bullshit they want to say. 

 

 

Posted
40 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What if the truth looks like a 20% payroll tax. 

Sounds really bad, it's good that this system will be cheaper than the current one so that won't happen. Shill. :)

35 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The “how are you going to pay for it?” schtick is a great look in the Democratic Primary.  It’s bizzaro world how universal healthcare is being attacked by democrats as a campaign strategy. 

Welcome to realizing that the Democratic Party establishment doesn't have the best interest of the people in mind and that they, in many ways, are an even greater enemy to progress than the outright hostility of right-wingers.

Learn to hate them for pure reasons.

Posted

From the linked article: 

Quote

Former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas wasn’t so delicate. Was she telling the truth? I asked. “She failed to do that tonight, and she’s failed to do that in previous debates,” O’Rourke replied. “And I think on an issue as important as health care, and an issue as important as taxes on the middle class, this country deserves to hear the truth.”

Beto, how DARE YOU

Quote

Jeff Weaver, Sanders’s chief strategist, resisted a question from another reporter asking if Warren was dishonest, but he argued that his own boss was being “straightforward” in saying that raising taxes would help pay for Medicare for All. “That’s the honest answer; that’s the only answer,” he told me when I followed up.

Stop throwing Liz under the bus!

Posted (edited)

I remember when Beto primaried an El Paso congressmen from the right and one of his planks was cutting Social Security and raising the enrollment age to make sure we had a ~*~*~ bAlAnCeD bUdGeT ~*~*~ and his run was funded by area Republicans who fund further-right Dem primary challengers because they know Republicans won't win.

That was fun.

Get off grandma's lawn you sub-Yang skateboarding doofus.

Edited by bad_teammate
Posted
Quote

How do you define flip?

Primary: "I'm with Bernie on M4A."
General: "Maybe we need a public option plan with private insurers after all."

If I wanted someone who had single-payer as merely a goal and not a commitment, I'd go with Pete who is at least being honest about it.

Posted
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

General: "Maybe we need a public option plan with private insurers after all."

Yeah, I don't see that happening after she's gone into detail of why a public option wouldn't work.  She's too good of an advocate on the campaign trail for MFA.  She should just copy/paste Bernie's plan and be done with it. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Which is precisely what she should do.  It is a MORAL issue.  But what about all those people employed by health insurance companies?!?

Whatever happened to the lucrative and hard working slave traders when slavery was abolished?  

Our healthcare system is barbaric, cruel, and oppressive.

We live in a country where people work jobs just for the health insurance but if they get too sick to work they get fired and lose their coverage. Then their whole family goes bankrupt just trying to stay alive.  

Fuck that shit. 

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Warren isn't a foreign policy candidate.

Which is kind of a problem since that's the president's main function.

Voters don’t give a shit about foreign policy, well they might give a shit but there’s about 10 other issues that come first.  I also think Liz would be a rockstar at foreign policy as president.  She would have no problem standing up to the dick heads fucking everyone else over. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Which is precisely what she should do.  It is a MORAL issue.  But what about all those people employed by health insurance companies?!?

Whatever happened to the lucrative and hard working slave traders when slavery was abolished? 

Dang, Hugo, chill.

The executives? Sure, let's equate them to the slaveholders. But Janice in the mail room? Nah, she's our friend she just needs a better job.

Posted
Just now, bad_teammate said:

Dang, Hugo, chill.

The executives? Sure, let's equate them to the slaveholders. But Janice in the mail room? Nah, she's our friend she just needs a better job.

The slave industry had mail rooms too.  You know what I meant. 

  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...