Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The Democrat's roster for a Trump - beater in 2020


swordfish

Recommended Posts

Sanders Wins Support of Crucial Nevada Teachers Union: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/sanders-wins-support-of-crucial-nevada-teachers-union/

Quote

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders picked up a coveted endorsement from the largest teacher’s union in Nevada on Tuesday, marking much-needed working class support for him in the early voting state.

The Clark County Education Association, representing 19,000 educators and other licensed professionals in the Las Vegas area, announced their support Tuesday for the Vermont senator in comments first reported by Buzzfeed News.

“Senator Sanders has a stellar record of supporting educators. His position on public education issues is second to none. He has always been a champion for educators and working class people,” union president Vikki Courtney in a statement.

“We appreciated that Sen. Sanders came to us, very much reached out to us, and wanted to speak to us,” Courtney added. “He is concerned about access to education for kids, for students themselves but also for the adults who are the educators. The student loan debt is part of that idea, it is hard to achieve when it costs so much to go to school. And that part is important because we’re lacking educators. We’re 1000 teachers short here in Nevada.”

The school district associated with the union, the Clark County School District, is the fifth-largest in the nation.

....

So I guess we now know who @DanteEstonia is voting for..........................

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Sanders Wins Support of Crucial Nevada Teachers Union: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/sanders-wins-support-of-crucial-nevada-teachers-union/

So I guess we now know who @DanteEstonia is voting for..........................

 

I would have voted for him without the endorsement. Double post

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Why?

 

Why not?

Edited by DanteEstonia
Double post, please delete.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

I would have voted for him without the endorsement. Double post

Why not?

If "why not" (aka "not Trump")  is you and other socialists primary reason for voting for Mr. Sanders then I fear for the future of our country.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Muda69 said:

If "why not" (aka "not Trump")  is you and other socialists primary reason for voting for Mr. Sanders then I fear for the future of our country.

 

Why not, they seem like a reasonable group.

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/project-veritas-video-cops-will-be-beaten-if-bernie-doesn-t-get-nomination-Bc8QfUmU80qTEbz1j1-qFg?fbclid=IwAR1K-mU5R8o9_Nr34oQR5MoJ65x4daj2UIihWRv1pSwfFQGESUyRxJVSMrc

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

I view Senator Sanders to be the best option in 2020.

Why?  What kind of leadership qualities do you believe Mr. Sanders brings to the office of POTUS?  Or is it all about the "free stuff" he and the other socialists are promising to give to Americans?

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Why?  What kind of leadership qualities do you believe Mr. Sanders brings to the office of POTUS?  Or is it all about the "free stuff" he and the other socialists are promising to give to Americans?

 

Senator Sanders is the same kind of leader as FDR and Teddy Roosevelt.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly I saw very little of the debate last night, but one thing hit me, regardless of the topic, Joe Biden has already lead the charge on it, i.e., he authored and got passed the first peace of climate change (then global warming) legislation back in like 86 or 87. So if Biden has already done all this stuff, why is it still a problem? 

Nearly 100 years of service at the national level among the six candidates last night. Two of them have 0 experience at the national level. And all I hear from them is what's wrong with the country and they're solutions. So they get a pass on their collective nearly 100 years in creating this mess, and their answer is more of it? Tom Steyer doesn't get a pass either, from what I can gather rich folks are the biggest threat we face, aside from climate change of course, and Tom Steyer made his fortune running a hedge fund that caters to banks and in the words of his Wiki page, "high wealth individuals". So if we believe what we're being told, Steyer IS the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Senator Sanders is the same kind of leader as FDR and Teddy Roosevelt.

FDR I can understand, but please expound on the shared leadership qualities and policy beliefs between Mr. Sanders and Teddy Roosevelt.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Tulsi Gabbard Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton Over 'Russian Asset' Comments: https://reason.com/2020/01/22/tulsi-gabbard-files-defamation-lawsuit-against-hillary-clinton-over-russian-asset-comments/

Quote

Dark horse presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) has filed an eyebrow-raising lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for defamation over comments the former Secretary of State made on a podcast suggesting that Gabbard was a Russian stooge.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday morning in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York claims that Clinton's comments have damaged Gabbard and democracy itself.

"Clinton had no basis for making her false assertions about Tulsi—and indeed, there is no factual basis for Clinton's conspiracy theory," reads Gabbard's complaint. "Tulsi brings this lawsuit to ensure that the truth prevails and to ensure this country's political elites are held accountable for intentionally trying to distort the truth in the midst of a critical Presidential election."

In October 2019, Clinton appeared on the podcast Campaign HQ, where she, while not mentioning Gabbard by name, implied that the Hawaiian representative was being "groomed" by the Republicans to launch a disruptive third-party bid, something that would apparently delight the Russian government.

"She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And, that's assuming [2016 Green Party candidate] Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset," said Clinton on the podcast.

When asked the following day if these comments were about Gabbard, a Clinton spokesperson said, "If the nesting doll fits."

In November, Gabbard sent a letter to Clinton threatening her with a defamation suit unless she retracted her comments. With no retraction forthcoming, Gabbard is making good on her threat.

Her lawsuit asks that Clinton be made to pay damages, and, incredibly, that the court issue an injunction prohibiting the "publication or republication" of Clinton's Russian asset comments.

....

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A story from 2015 on Bernie Sanders that the left (meetoo flag holders) seems to forget about......

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/29/410606045/the-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained

The essay by the Vermont senator, who officially kicked off his presidential campaign this week, isn't long — only a page. Warning: The bit about rape comes at the very beginning, as does some not-totally-safe-for-work language:

"A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.

"A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.

"The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church, or maybe to their 'revolutionary' political meeting.

"Have you ever looked at the StagManHeroTough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspaper with the articles like 'Girl 12 raped by 14 men' sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?"

 

"Many women seem to be walking a tightrope," he writes, as their "qualities of love, openness, and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism."

He adds that men, likewise, are confused:

"What is it they want from a woman? Are they at fault? Are they perpetrating this man-woman situation? Are they oppressors?"

One way to read the essay is that Sanders was doing (in a supremely ham-handed way) what journalists do every day: draw the reader in with an attention-getting lede, then get to the meat of the article in the middle. Though he only sticks to his larger point for three paragraphs before getting back to his fictional couple, ending the essay with an imagined conversation:

"And she said, 'You wanted me not as a woman, or a lover, or a friend, but as a submissive woman, or submissive friend, or submissive lover...'

"And he said, 'You're full of ______.'

"And they never again made love together (which they had each liked to do more than anything) or never saw each other one more time."

 

Draw your own conclusions......but if the "grab em by the pussies" crowd starts that rant again, SF suggests "dropping this on em"......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presidential Candidates Promise Freebies for Everyone

Politicians win, taxpayers lose.  https://reason.com/2020/01/29/presidential-candidates-promise-freebies-for-everyone/

Quote

The Iowa Caucus, the real start of the 2020 presidential primaries, is next week. Who's favored to win? Sadly, as I write this, the smart money says it's the candidate who's promised Americans the most "free" stuff.

Six months ago, my staff and I tallied the candidates' promises. All wanted to give away trillions—or more accurately, wanted government to tax you and spend your money on the candidates' schemes.

At that point, Senator Kamala Harris led. Fortunately, her promises did not bring her sustained support, and she dropped out.

Unfortunately, now the other candidates are making even more promises.

So, it's time for a new contest.

My new video ranks the current leading candidates by how much of your money they promise to spend. We divide the promises into four categories:

Education

Joe Biden would make community college free, cut student loans in half, increase Pell Grants, and modernize schools.

Added to his previous campaign promises, he'd increase federal spending by $157 billion per year.

Elizabeth Warren would spend much more. She wants government to "provide universal child care for every baby in this country age 0 to 5, universal pre-K for every child, raise the wages of every childcare worker and preschool teacher in America, provide for universal tuition-free college, put $50 billion into historically black colleges and universities… and cancel student loan debt for 95% of the people."

She'd outspend Biden—but not Bernie Sanders.

Sanders would forgive all student loans—even for the rich. He also demands that government give everyone child care and pre-K.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg also promises free child care, more pay for teachers, more career education, free college and Pell Grants, plus the refinancing of student debt.

Good try, Pete, but Sanders "wins" in the education category, with nearly $300 billion in promises.

Climate

All the Democrats pretend they will do something useful about climate change. Biden would spend $170 billion per year, Buttigieg $150 billion to $200 billion, and Warren $300 billion. Sanders "wins" this category, too, by promising more than $1 trillion.

Health Care

Even the "moderate," Biden, now wants to "build out Obamacare" and to cover people here illegally.

So does Buttigieg—but he'd spend twice as much on it.

Warren complains the Buttigieg plan "costs so much less" than her plan. She'd spend $2 trillion a year.

Sanders is again the biggest spender. He'd spend $3 trillion of your money on his "Medicare for All" plan.

Welfare

In this category, Biden, to his credit, plans no new spending.

But Buttigieg has been cranking out lots of new promises, like $45 billion for "affordable housing" and $27 billion to expand Social Security payments beyond what people paid in.

Warren would also spend more on "affordable housing" and give kids more food stamps.

Sanders "wins" again. He promises to guarantee everyone a job, provide "housing for all," and give more people food stamps.

Miscellaneous

Then there's spending that doesn't neatly fit into major categories, like Biden's plans for new foreign aid for Central America, Sanders' high-speed internet, Buttigieg's expanding national service programs like the Peace Corps, and Warren's plan to force government to buy only American-made products.

Finally, we found a spending category that Sanders doesn't win. With $130 billion in new plans, Biden wins the "miscellaneous" round.

And what about that incumbent Republican?

Donald Trump once talked about "cutting waste," but government spending rose more than half a trillion dollars during his first three years.

Now Trump wants $267 billion in new spending for things like infrastructure and "access to high-quality, affordable childcare."

At least Trump wants to spend less than the Democrats.

Biden and Buttigieg would double Trump's increase. Warren would quadruple it. She'd increase spending by almost $3 trillion.

But Bernie Sanders blows them all out of the water, with nearly $5 trillion in proposed new spending!

"I'm not denying we're going to spend a lot of money," he admits.

He'll probably win in Iowa next week. Whoever wins… taxpayers lose.

And what is sad is the taxpayers who vote for a uni-party candidate.  They are as short-sighted as the candidates themselves, enamored with what kind of "free" stuff they can get from the federal government.    They are perfectly willing to sacrifice the future American, the country of their children and grandchildren.  Pitiful.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Muda69 said:

 

And what is sad is the taxpayers who vote for a uni-party candidate.  They are as short-sighted as the candidates themselves, enamored with what kind of "free" stuff they can get from the federal government.    They are perfectly willing to sacrifice the future American, the country of their children and grandchildren.  Pitiful.

 

There’s no children or grandchildren coming along with the way the USA is heading.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/723518379/u-s-births-fell-to-a-32-year-low-in-2018-cdc-says-birthrate-is-at-record-level

Quote

The U.S. birthrate fell again in 2018, to 3,788,235 births — representing a 2% drop from 2017. It's the lowest number of births in 32 years, according to a new federal report. The numbers also sank the U.S. fertility rate to a record low.

Not since 1986 has the U.S. seen so few babies born. And it's an ongoing slump: 2018 was the fourth consecutive year of birth declines, according to the provisional birthrate report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Birthrates fell for nearly all racial and age groups, with only slight gains for women in their late 30s and early 40s, the CDC says.

The news has come as something of a surprise to demographers who say that with the U.S. economy and job market continuing a years-long growth streak, they had expected the birthrate to show signs of stabilizing, or even rising. But instead, the drop could force changes to forecasts about how the country will look — with an older population and fewer young workers to sustain key social systems.

"It's a national problem," says Dowell Myers, a demographer at the University of Southern California.

....

The uni-party has to look at this trend with dismay.  Without more happy little worker drones to fund their increasingly larger tax-and-spend schemes like Medicare For All,  Free College Education, Endless Wars in the Middle East,  etc.  what are they going to do?   "Tax the rich" even more?

   

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gonzoron said:

Wouldn't take much to be more than zero.

And you expect such a "tax the rich" scheme to actually pay for all these huge government entitlements?  Good luck with that.  

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs

Quote

In late January, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who's in the race to become president in 2020, added a new kind of tax to the American conversation, causing anxious pacing on superyachts in every port: a wealth tax. It's a cousin of the property tax, but it encompasses all forms of wealth: cash, stocks, jewelry, thoroughbred horses, jets, everything. Warren calls the policy her "Ultra-Millionaire Tax." It would impose a 2% federal tax on every dollar of a person's net worth over $50 million and an additional 1% tax on every dollar in net worth over $1 billion. Economists estimate it would hit the 75,000 richest households and raise $2.75 trillion over ten years.

It's a direct attack on wealth inequality, and it's influenced by the work of French economist Thomas Piketty, whose book Capital in the Twenty-First Century put a spotlight on the increasing disparity of wealth in developed nations. Warren, who informally endorsed a wealth tax while at an event with Piketty in 2015, is the first U.S. presidential candidate to take up the cause.

The disparity in what Americans own is much greater than the disparity in what they earn. Jeff Bezos has a net worth of $135 billion, but his formal salary is less than $100,000 per year. Warren's proposal aims to tap the fortunes of the ultra-rich and use the proceeds to fund social programs. But a wealth tax faces serious hurdles, including lessons from a failed experiment in Europe, the need for significant bureaucratic expansion, and serious questions over whether it's even constitutional.

Euro Flop

Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it.

In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue.

UC Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman, whose research helped put wealth inequality back on the American policy agenda, played a part in designing Warren's wealth tax. He says it was designed explicitly with European failures in mind.

He argues the Warren plan is "very different than any wealth tax that has existed anywhere in the world." Unlike in the European Union, it's impossible to freely move to another country or state to escape national taxes. Existing U.S. law also taxes citizens wherever they are, so even if they do sail to a tax haven in the Caribbean, they're still on the hook. On top of that, Warren's plan includes an "exit tax," which would confiscate 40 percent of all a person's wealth over $50 million if they renounce their citizenship.

Warren's tax is also only limited to the super rich, whereas in Europe the threshold was low enough to also hit the sort-of rich. This higher threshold helps it avoid problems like someone having a family business that makes them look rich on paper but, in fact, they're short on the cash needed to pay the tax.

Also important, Zucman argues, the higher threshold means only a small group will be affected. And smaller groups have a harder time fighting for exemptions, which hurt European efforts. Some countries, for example, exempted artwork and antiques on the grounds they were hard to value. It's true, but it creates a huge loophole: Buy lots of art! Economists hate incentives like these because they distort markets. Warren's proposal calls for no exemptions.

Bureaucracy and the Constitution

But having no exemptions means the U.S. government will have to get very good at valuing art, diamonds, superyachts, and all the other fabulous things the super rich collect. Indeed, Warren's plan includes a call for "a significant increase in the IRS enforcement budget." It was the hefty cost of enforcement that played a big part in Austria killing their wealth tax back in 1993. It turns out it costs a lot to track and value rich people's stuff every year.

And a wealth tax may not even be legal. The ability of the federal government to tax is tightly curtailed by the U.S. Constitution. Legally imposing the first income tax in 1913 required a constitutional amendment. Legal scholars are currently debating whether a wealth tax would need another amendment. The debate, Josh Barro writes, centers on whether a wealth tax would be a "direct tax," which the Constitution makes really hard for the federal government to impose.

While the legality of a federal wealth tax is in question, the current politics of it are not. A new poll finds that even a majority of Republicans support Warren's wealth tax. It turns out President Trump himself once advocated for one too.

....

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And you expect such a "tax the rich" scheme to actually pay for all these huge government entitlements?  Good luck with that.  

I claimed nothing of the sort. Good luck with your reading comprehension course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...