Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I'm on the fence on who I'll vote for between Bernie and Warren. I agree with Meatball that Warren would be better at the actual job of President, in terms of the shaking hands, whipping votes, policy thoroughness, etc. But I've long been an idealist at heart - and admittedly have abdicated that part of myself recently - and Bernie's integrity and consistency, chutzpah and morality are all in the right places. I think he comes across as cantankerous and I'm concerned about how well he will lead his policies through when facing Congressional gridlock, and I think Warren would be better at smoothing things out. But Bernie's Bernie. Frankly I like Warren as a politician, but Bernie as a person. And I like people, but don't like politicians, but this is politics, so...that's where I'm at.
Edit: For context, I was all-in on Bernie last election, and was in the Warren camp up for this one until seeing that photo with Warren and others standing and clapping for Trump after the SoTU with Bernie remaining seated. Got me introspecting about what it means to stand for something.
Last Edit: Sept 10, 2019 23:03:58 GMT -5 by Jaz - Back to Top
3.16/health 4.9/pierre kwenders 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.22/sofi tukker 5.25/hozier 6.16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 7.31/justice 9.6/st. vincent + yves tumor 9.12/sts9 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.25/charli xcx + troye sivan 9.27-29/making time 10.5/lupe fiasco 10.17/air 10.18/orville peck 11.20/caribou
Isn’t she specifically talking about big money from oil and fossil fuel industries in this clip? I have been unable to find any record of her taking money from those groups? Did she?
Also, I don’t blame her for supporting Hillary in 2016 if that’s who she truly felt had the best chance to win the Election. Hillary wanted to continue to improve Obamacare, so I don’t really think that contradicts how she says she feels about health care. Also, maybe she’s speaking with Hillary about being a woman who’s running for President against Trump? She’s in a very similar situation that Hillary was in, so it would make sense to pick her brain, no?
If someone wanted advice for beating Trump, they probably shouldn't ask Hillary Clinton, which is to say nothing of how reductive "a woman running against Trump" is. Also, she needs to win the primary first, which is probably the actual reason she's chatting with Hillary: to leverage Hillary's influence to secure superdelegates and I'm sure angle for an endorsement.
Sounds like she supported Hillary because she thought she had a shot at VP. If it was about who had the best shot at beating Trump, there's not very much evidence that that's the case. Hillary lost. That would make me question her political instincts. Also, it would be nice if she had conviction on progressive policy that would lead her to endorse a progressive and not simply be a frontrunner. Either candidate between Sanders or Clinton should have been able to beat Trump, and I know you will dismiss any polling as you already have, but the evidence suggests that Bernie was the better-suited candidate to beat Trump.
Whether she is speaking specifically on fossil fuels isn't really the point. The point is that she intends to collect corporate money and that she's telling you that if she took corporate money from the fossil fuel industry that she would be their lackey. She has pledged not to take fossil fuel money, which is good, but her point applies to other industries as well. She plans on getting it from somewhere. So does that mean banks? Does that mean health insurance companies? Where is it going to come from, and what is she going to do for it?
Thank you for your well thought out reply which made me consider different aspects of this nuanced situation. It’s much better than “Ha! You used numbers in your post.” And “You didn’t use that word correctly.”
Thank you for your well thought out reply which made me consider different aspects of this nuanced situation. It’s much better than “Ha! You used numbers in your post.” And “You didn’t use that word correctly.”
Did you have something you wanted to say to me? I'm getting some subliminal messages here
If it was about who had the best shot at beating Trump, there's not very much evidence that that's the case. Hillary lost. That would make me question her political instincts.
Warren endorsed Hillary on June 9, 2016, the date she essentially secured the nomination. Sanders endorsed her 17 days later. Everyone thought Hillary was going to beat Trump.
You're not doing a lot for the argument that she wasn't just a frontrunner when it came to endorsing Hillary. She could have endorsed either at any point in the race. Waiting until Hillary had won is sort of the worst of both worlds.
Warren endorsed Hillary on June 9, 2016, the date she essentially secured the nomination. Sanders endorsed her 17 days later. Everyone thought Hillary was going to beat Trump.
You're not doing a lot for the argument that she wasn't just a frontrunner when it came to endorsing Hillary. She could have endorsed either at any point in the race. Waiting until Hillary had won is sort of the worst of both worlds.
Pablo - thank you so much for this wonderful polite post. You have the patience of a saint and I am so pleased for the opportunity to debate such a learned scholar. Incidentally, I have no response
Years of Republicans deregulating everything and making white collar crime legal we’re the much bigger issue. He also took a whole bunch of money from the telecom industry and did exactly what they didn’t want him to do and pushed through net neutrality.
Absolutely. But the Dems played a part in deregulation too. Including Biden. I'm sure if you looked at his contributions in the 90's you'd find some financial industry funding. He is from Maryland aftetall.
Wdit: well, he's from Penn. But was a rep from Maryland.
Can someone explain why presidents ask someone to resign instead of just firing them?
usually they are people who have been working in that sector for however many years, and there's a level of respect and not feeling the need to embarrass someone, but thats not whats going on here.
i don't understand the "Warren would be better at navigating congress" angle really. everyone in the GOP seems to hate her too. I don't remember anyone really sticking up for the Pochahantous thing in the same way they did for Omar* really.
Can someone explain why presidents ask someone to resign instead of just firing them?
usually they are people who have been working in that sector for however many years, and there's a level of respect and not feeling the need to embarrass someone, but thats not whats going on here.
when I see "asked to resign" I assume the rest of the public as well as me realizes the reason for this is because your services aren't wanted anymore. Sounds like this:
i don't understand the "Warren would be better at navigating congress" angle really. everyone in the GOP seems to hate her too. I don't remember anyone really sticking up for the Pochahantous thing in the same way they did for Omar* really.
I remember everyone throwing Omar under the bus or not sticking up for her at the very least, including Bernie and AOC.
I've been asked to send in my letter of resignation before. I told them ok and then just ghosted it. I do feel like there's also some degree of HR language that makes one more preferable than the other, but I imagine there's less of that in the WH.
I've been asked to send in my letter of resignation before. I told them ok and then just ghosted it. I do feel like there's also some degree of HR language that makes one more preferable than the other, but I imagine there's less of that in the WH.
I would say no, fire me, unless offered YUGE severance
Can someone explain why presidents ask someone to resign instead of just firing them?
For some positions I'm pretty sure it impacts how the vacancy is filled, like in term of length of interim status and/or whether it needs to be confirmed by the Senate.
Thank you for your well thought out reply which made me consider different aspects of this nuanced situation. It’s much better than “Ha! You used numbers in your post.” And “You didn’t use that word correctly.”
Did you have something you wanted to say to me? I'm getting some subliminal messages here
Just that I don’t get the point of this, and I think it makes you look like a hypocrite. You’re in here talking about how a primary is the opportunity to discuss and criticize candidates so that voters can figure out who the best candidate is. Well, here I am, a voter who is not as well informed as some here, coming to discuss the candidates. Seeking out more knowledge about what’s happening in the political spectrum. My original posts weren’t aggressive. I pretty much just laid out my feelings on Warren based on the information I knew. I asked you several legitimate questions about why Warren was not an acceptable candidate, and you ignored all of them, deciding instead to get hung up on my formatting and a dumb word choice. You got me. “Subliminal” had no place in that comment. You act like you’re righteous advocating for your far left platforms, when really it seems like the only reason you’re here/talking about politics is to try and make people feel stupid. I like when you bring real discussion to the table because you’re clearly smart, but this kind of stuff just makes you look like you’re full of shit.
Can someone explain why presidents ask someone to resign instead of just firing them?
For some positions I'm pretty sure it impacts how the vacancy is filled, like in term of length of interim status and/or whether it needs to be confirmed by the Senate.
Did you have something you wanted to say to me? I'm getting some subliminal messages here
Just that I don’t get the point of this, and I think it makes you look like a hypocrite. You’re in here talking about how a primary is the opportunity to discuss and criticize candidates so that voters can figure out who the best candidate is. Well, here I am, a voter who is not as well informed as some here, coming to discuss the candidates. Seeking out more knowledge about what’s happening in the political spectrum. My original posts weren’t aggressive. I pretty much just laid out my feelings on Warren based on the information I knew. I asked you several legitimate questions about why Warren was not an acceptable candidate, and you ignored all of them, deciding instead to get hung up on my formatting and a dumb word choice. You got me. “Subliminal” had no place in that comment. You act like you’re righteous advocating for your far left platforms, when really it seems like the only reason you’re here/talking about politics is to try and make people feel stupid. I like when you bring real discussion to the table because you’re clearly smart, but this kind of stuff just makes you look like you’re full of shit.
LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR
Just that I don’t get the point of this, and I think it makes you look like a hypocrite. You’re in here talking about how a primary is the opportunity to discuss and criticize candidates so that voters can figure out who the best candidate is. Well, here I am, a voter who is not as well informed as some here, coming to discuss the candidates. Seeking out more knowledge about what’s happening in the political spectrum. My original posts weren’t aggressive. I pretty much just laid out my feelings on Warren based on the information I knew. I asked you several legitimate questions about why Warren was not an acceptable candidate, and you ignored all of them, deciding instead to get hung up on my formatting and a dumb word choice. You got me. “Subliminal” had no place in that comment. You act like you’re righteous advocating for your far left platforms, when really it seems like the only reason you’re here/talking about politics is to try and make people feel stupid. I like when you bring real discussion to the table because you’re clearly smart, but this kind of stuff just makes you look like you’re full of shit.
LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR
Warren endorsed Hillary on June 9, 2016, the date she essentially secured the nomination. Sanders endorsed her 17 days later. Everyone thought Hillary was going to beat Trump.
You're not doing a lot for the argument that she wasn't just a frontrunner when it came to endorsing Hillary. She could have endorsed either at any point in the race. Waiting until Hillary had won is sort of the worst of both worlds.
That’s not my argument. The thesis of your post was that Warren endorsing Hillary over Bernie showed bad instincts because Hillary lost. I was just pointing out that Bernie was already done when she endorsed and everyone thought Hillary would win.
Absolutely. But the Dems played a part in deregulation too. Including Biden. I'm sure if you looked at his contributions in the 90's you'd find some financial industry funding. He is from Maryland aftetall.
Wdit: well, he's from Penn. But was a rep from Maryland.
Wait, so are you arguing now that Obama didn’t prosecute the banks because Biden got money from the financial industry in the 90s?
They tried to prosecute the guys who blew up Bear Stearns in 2009 and lost in embarrassing fashion. After that they stuck to fining all the banks a couple million at a time because they thought (reasonably, even if not 100% accurately) that the law wasn’t on their side. Trying to say it’s about pleasing donors is both wrong and actively harmful because the real problems are much more complicated and much worse.
No, I wasn't connecting Biden to the lack of prosecutions at all. Your post only mentioned Republicans being responsible for deregulation. I was just reminding you that the Dems have a major role in it themselves and one is running for election right now. From my understanding, President Carter's administration signed one of the first major pieces of modern deregulation. The Democrat that introduced that bill went on to sponsor, and have his named attached to, another major deregulation bill during the Reagan years. I've seen it showed plenty of times that there is a correlation between taking Wall St. contributions and voting for deregulation measures. This seems especially true for Democrats in Congress.
What I assume to be the major deregulation bill was Gramm-Leach-Biley (1999) It's the one that seems to always gets the most attention at least. Dems in the house voted for it 75%. Dems in the Senate 84%.
Back to Obama, you undoubtedly understand the issue surrounding the financial crisis more than I do. I thought the prosecution blew the case against Bear Stearns? As in they got cocky and centered there case on iffy email exchanges that ended up turning flat under cross examination. I've read plenty over the years from professionals that seemed to think Obama and company had the evidence to push forward. Plus, all the hay made about Holder not wanting to risk fincial fallout from going after major corporations. So are we just to except that if you have money and power you are not only above the law but you can knowingly endanger the financial security of millions of people and get away with it? Why didn't they do more to try and change the laws... if the legal framework was allowing such egregious violations to take place in broad daylight? It's just hard to except that the most powerful man on the planet, who's party had control of congress, couldn't have taken more actions.
I don't think me being skeptical is anywhere near as harmful as actively taking money from Wall Street and literally deregulating the banks. Which many Democrats did on multiple occasions. It's harmful for the American people and it's harmful for Democrats future electoral chances. I understand these are complicated matters and more wide ranging than campaign contributions. So you would think the Dems could start there. Instead of not being able to keep a solid front on votes to ease back Dodd-Frank just last year. Which 16 senate and 38 house Dems voted for. The senators that voted for it took 4 times as much money from banks than those that opposed it.
So maybe Obama was a bad example but my point about corporate money is still relevant. There is plenty of reason to think it's bad for democracy and people have reason to be leery of Warren taking it in a general election. I think it will hurt her in the eyes of some voters but hopefully not too bad.
Absolutely. But the Dems played a part in deregulation too. Including Biden. I'm sure if you looked at his contributions in the 90's you'd find some financial industry funding. He is from Maryland aftetall.
Wdit: well, he's from Penn. But was a rep from Maryland.
Wait, who? Biden represented Delaware, right?
That is where all the credit card companies are.
Yeah, Delaware. Not sure why I was thinking of Maryland. Another reason I don't post at work. Too distracting.