Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote: Her vision equates to a check on the capitalist/globalist system that has prospered on the back of everyone else since forever...

PHATJ wrote:Elizabeth Warren is the original Rachel Dolezal.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Mickey wrote:Sanders and Warren have very similar politics.

There are some huge differences in how their ideas would play out though.

Warren's highly detailed policies -- which mostly amount to "tax the super-rich, and impose modest taxes on those making between $100K-$250K." She has clear delineations of taxes/support for those beneath the poverty line, in the middle class, in the $100K-$250K bracket, $250K+, and then the "super rich" (not sure exactly where this starts). Her vision equates to a check on the capitalist/globalist system that has prospered on the back of everyone else since forever...

Bernie's policies, on the other hand, have typically been long on concept and short on details; and with the notable exception of his educational plan, are very much an off-shoot of socialism. Without much info, I see his ideas, in the long run, devolving into the Gov't-subsidized affluenza that Bi_3 mentioned the other day.

It'll be fun to watch the two of them debate.

Green Habit wrote:I realize that people want to use Presidents as avatars for entire party agendas, but it's silly to for presidential candidates to spend so much rhetoric on legislative agendas when they're at the mercy of what Congress will send them. If the opposing party controls one chamber of Congress, their legislative agenda is DOA, and even if their party has full control, Congress is still going to dictate what laws they'll pass that could vary much from what the President wants.

It would be more useful to hear what the candidates would do with, y'know, their actual delegated power in the executive branch.

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:Elizabeth Warren is the original Rachel Dolezal.

I bet this gets big laughs on the traveling salesman and brain melted boomer circuit.

Green Habit wrote:I realize that people want to use Presidents as avatars for entire party agendas, but it's silly to for presidential candidates to spend so much rhetoric on legislative agendas when they're at the mercy of what Congress will send them. If the opposing party controls one chamber of Congress, their legislative agenda is DOA, and even if their party has full control, Congress is still going to dictate what laws they'll pass that could vary much from what the President wants.

It would be more useful to hear what the candidates would do with, y'know, their actual delegated power in the executive branch.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:Elizabeth Warren is the original Rachel Dolezal.

I bet this gets big laughs on the traveling salesman and brain melted boomer circuit.

What I find great about this criticism is that it's literally the worst thing you can say about her.

What baffles me about it is that people will vote for the pussy grabber but be offended by the woman who naively believed her grandmother when it came to family lore.

PHATJ wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Mickey wrote:

PHATJ wrote:Elizabeth Warren is the original Rachel Dolezal.

I bet this gets big laughs on the traveling salesman and brain melted boomer circuit.

What I find great about this criticism is that it's literally the worst thing you can say about her.

What baffles me about it is that people will vote for the pussy grabber but be offended by the woman who naively believed her grandmother when it came to family lore.

Lol, “worst thing”.

Mickey wrote:

Peeps wrote:warren, harris and a very distant third is sanders

Explain this logic to me. Sanders and Warren have very similar politics. Why does Harris come between them?

4/5 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote: Her vision equates to a check on the capitalist/globalist system that has prospered on the back of everyone else since forever...

You know that I'm contractually obligated to point out that the liberalization of trade and markets has been associated with the largest and fastest movement out of poverty and extreme poverty in human history.

I'm not arguing that the rich haven't benefited or that they shouldn't be taxed at higher rates than everybody else or anything else (they have and they should). I just don't like the implication that this is a zero-sum game that the rich are winning and everybody else is losing, especially globally.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Green Habit wrote:I realize that people want to use Presidents as avatars for entire party agendas, but it's silly to for presidential candidates to spend so much rhetoric on legislative agendas when they're at the mercy of what Congress will send them. If the opposing party controls one chamber of Congress, their legislative agenda is DOA, and even if their party has full control, Congress is still going to dictate what laws they'll pass that could vary much from what the President wants.

It would be more useful to hear what the candidates would do with, y'know, their actual delegated power in the executive branch.

In the age of naked power grabs, executive orders and wars without congressional approval, I'm not so sure this logic still applies.

Peeps wrote:sanders is just too old. i realize hes not even 10 years older than warren(he'll be almost 80 at the time of election) but we do need someone a bit younger. the others im not impressed with at all even though they are younger so i am wagering age vs what i like about what i am hearing