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 think just focusing on this could be a mistake but it's certainly impeachable. Not that his base will care. Although I've seen some good arguments on why spreading out the charges has some advantages for the GOP.
BUT this is yet another reason nominating Biden would be a mistake. People can blow it off all they want but this is "but her emails" 2.0. Who the fuck wants to spend 2020 explaining how it's, in fact, not suspicious that Biden's wholly unqualified son was getting paid $50,000 a month while working in a notoriously corrupt country? It doesn't matter if it was all above the board. It will hurt the Dems to have to fight this "both sides" bullshit that will come from the GOP and the media.
That's on top of everything else about Biden. Some pundits think this will sink him and I hope that's true but who knows.
But then the Republicans will just gin up another Benghazi around whoever does get the nom.
Sure, but it takes a lot more work to gin something up and make it have a broader impact than typically partisan attacks. Where as this issue is organically going to be in the spotlight for months. It also falls naturally into people's suspicions that everyone in Washington is corrupt and it makes no difference who's in charge. This shit is a pretty pervasive belief among the American public. We can't trust everyone to go fact check things that confirm their already existing beliefs. Not really something we want to go up against when we're looking to expand our ranks with indies and non-voters.
Again, I don't even think this is the worst thing about Biden's chances. It's just an unfortunate consequence of what's finally leading to impeachment. Which I'm all for, if that wasn't clear.
I think just focusing on this could be a mistake but it's certainly impeachable. Not that his base will care. Although I've seen some good arguments on why spreading out the charges has some advantages for the GOP.
BUT this is yet another reason nominating Biden would be a mistake. People can blow it off all they want but this is "but her emails" 2.0. Who the fuck wants to spend 2020 explaining how it's, in fact, not suspicious that Biden's wholly unqualified son was getting paid $50,000 a month while working in a notoriously corrupt country? It doesn't matter if it was all above the board. It will hurt the Dems to have to fight this "both sides" bullshit that will come from the GOP and the media.
That's on top of everything else about Biden. Some pundits think this will sink him and I hope that's true but who knows.
I agree with this. It’s obvious that Trump is most scared of Biden, but I think that’s a good thing, and I hope is downward momentum in the polls continues.
Yeah, obviously the best outcome is Biden tanks and Trump gets impeached.
You and I have very different definitions of organic.
I was referring to how Hunter and Joe are now naturally part of the story. Of course Trump's involvement and how the GOP will spin it was/is manufactured. The way the media handles the story could very well be manufactured as well. Which would go along with how trying to be "balanced" had them talking about Hillary's emails forever.
I agree with this. It’s obvious that Trump is most scared of Biden, but I think that’s a good thing, and I hope is downward momentum in the polls continues.
Yeah, obviously the best outcome is Biden tanks and Trump gets impeached.
You and I have very different definitions of organic.
I was referring to how Hunter and Joe are now naturally part of the story. Of course Trump's involvement and how the GOP will spin it was/is manufactured. The way the media handles the story could very well be manufactured as well. Which would go along with how trying to be "balanced" had them talking about Hillary's emails forever.
And Republicans keep focusing on irrelevant candidates. We are 3 years removed from 2016 and I still cannot go a week without seeing some stupid meme about how corrupt Hillary Clinton is. Just recently they started focusing on Biden more, but it seems he is becoming less likely to be the nominee. If they keep this up, whatever faux scandal they do create about the nominee really won’t be as effective as it was in 2016 because they were working on that for years. They’ll pretty much be gambling on the hope that America won’t vote in a candidate with a socialist platform, but I think America (including most Republican voters) really want something done about our fucked up health care system. If Dems can just stay on that message, I would consider them big favorites in 2020.
When Pritzker was running for governor of Illinois, one thing he was constantly pressed on was the specifics of his budget plan. He refused to give any, and his reasoning was, “look this is going to have to be negotiated in the state legislature, so any specifics I give you will be irrelevant.” (paraphrasing). Since he’s been elected he passed his budget, and I feel, has been making great strides in improving the state overall. I personally view Warren’s side stepping of the details in the same vein. Sanders and Warren can make all the promises they want, but at the end of the day, the details will be worked out in congress. If I am not wrong, I believe that Warren did acknowledge in the last debate that a M4A plan would mean raising taxes, not just on corporations and the wealthy, but on everyone. To me, she seems serious about pushing this agenda, but I get why some don’t buy it, especially when Bernie is going all in on his platform.
?. I would say it’s pretty important, since those who ate most skeptical are wondering how it will be paid for.
The only people concerned about the cost are the wealthiest goons in the country.
That’s not true. Americans absolutely hate higher taxes. It’s one of the most frustrating facts about our electorate. When cook county enacted a soda tax, literally EVERYONE bitched about it, and it was only a $.01/per oz tax. People complained so much that the county rolled it back. Senior citizens especially hate the idea of higher taxes because many of them are on fixed incomes. So I think coming out and acknowledging that raising taxes is necessary to push this through is a pretty solid indicator that she’s serious.
Last Edit: Sept 27, 2019 1:03:31 GMT -5 by pmo - Back to Top
The only people concerned about the cost are the wealthiest goons in the country.
That’s not true. Americans absolutely hate higher taxes. It’s one of the most frustrating facts about our electorate. When cook county enacted a soda tax, literally EVERYONE bitched about it, and it was only a $.01/per oz tax. People complained so much that the county rolled it back. Senior citizens especially hate the idea of higher taxes because many of them are on fixed incomes. So I think coming out and acknowledging that raising taxes is necessary to push this through is a pretty solid indicator that she’s serious.
When Pritzker was running for governor of Illinois, one thing he was constantly pressed on was the specifics of his budget plan. He refused to give any, and his reasoning was, “look this is going to have to be negotiated in the state legislature, so any specifics I give you will be irrelevant.” (paraphrasing). Since he’s been elected he passed his budget, and I feel, has been making great strides in improving the state overall. I personally view Warren’s side stepping of the details in the same vein. Sanders and Warren can make all the promises they want, but at the end of the day, the details will be worked out in congress. If I am not wrong, I believe that Warren did acknowledge in the last debate that a M4A plan would mean raising taxes, not just on corporations and the wealthy, but on everyone. To me, she seems serious about pushing this agenda, but I get why some don’t buy it, especially when Bernie is going all in on his platform.
At this point I think she's almost certainly going to balk on M4A. I've been confused by her position but then surprised when she kept sticking with it at the debates. There seems to be more little hints that she's going to track more towards something like the public option at some point. Like a long-term transitional plan, maybe? Which is probably a good political gamble for the primary but not so much for the general.
If/when she does things are going to get ugly. I'll say the same thing I said about Kamala. If she's going to go a different direction she needs to just be honest. One of her main slogans is about her plans for everything and how wonkish she is but she's dodging around on one of the biggest issues. *She clearly seems to be using it to garner votes from more far-left types. If she backs down on this she's going to lose a lot of the left's votes in the general. They'll see her as being dishonest and co-opting something they've been working hard on. It's worrying.
Edit: *Actually, you could argue she's using it to get votes from across the coalition because a lot of moderates are banking on her scaling down M4A. So yeah, I don't see the plans candidate walking this tightrope without some long-term goal of coming out with something to try and appease both side. And maybe that's smart politics, it's just not going to be received well by a lot of people whose votes she needs.
Edit 2 electric boogaloo : This TYT debate came up in my feed and it's a pretty fair back and forth on the current situation. Cenk makes some good points for Warren but I think what Ana is saying makes the most sense. No matter where you stand on the issue this is a good listen.
That’s not true. Americans absolutely hate higher taxes. It’s one of the most frustrating facts about our electorate. When cook county enacted a soda tax, literally EVERYONE bitched about it, and it was only a $.01/per oz tax. People complained so much that the county rolled it back. Senior citizens especially hate the idea of higher taxes because many of them are on fixed incomes. So I think coming out and acknowledging that raising taxes is necessary to push this through is a pretty solid indicator that she’s serious.
Do you have video of Warren doing so jw
This is my mistake. I could’ve swore that she said she was going to raise taxes, but after rewatching the medicare section of the debate and reading some articles, she sticks to talking about total cost hinting that yes taxes will go up, but total costs will fall when you consider premiums, deductibles, and copays, and not fully committing to raising taxes. I was wrong.
Last Edit: Sept 27, 2019 1:38:58 GMT -5 by pmo - Back to Top
This is my mistake. I could’ve swore that she said she was going to raise taxes, but after rewatching the medicare section of the debate and reading some articles, she sticks to talking about total cost hinting that yes taxes will go up, but total costs will fall when you consider premiums, deductibles, and copays, and not fully committing to raising taxes. I was wrong.
You might be thinking of her Colbert appearance where he jokingly gave her a hard time and suggested she just say taxes will go up but your personal cost will go down. Or something similar.
Unrelated but I like this. "Our future is radical."
By May, Giuliani planned to visit Kiev to meet with the newly elected Zelensky. After the New York Times revealed his plan, the former mayor canceled his trip but said he met in Paris with more prosecutors, including Nazar Kholodnytsky, head of Ukraine’s Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. So many Ukrainian prosecutors had to be consulted because they often disagreed with one another, Giuliani said, adding that some of them are “inept.”
“It’s hard for me to separate all the different ones,” he said.
Some of the Ukrainians Giuliani and his associates interacted with were banned from entering the United States. Giuliani blamed the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for blocking the officials from coming to the United States to give him more information.
Parnas described an atmosphere in which Ukrainian prosecutors were rushing to Giuliani with information, often also pursuing their own personal and political agendas. He described the officials as “hitting on every door to try and get their information here.”
he blamed the Embassy, for not allowing banned foreign nationals to enter the country, to bride him, with election secrets. what a goon.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Sept 27, 2019 18:22:20 GMT -5
Lots of news and reports keep coming out and it's hard to keep up with it.
Deutsche bank says they have two tax returns of Trump, Giuliani pulls out of an event that Putin was going to be at, NRA is both found to be a Russian asset as well as trying their own quid pro quo with Trump by supporting his fight against impeachment if he would make some moves against gun control.
Post by SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal on Sept 27, 2019 19:23:55 GMT -5
This is the kind of bullshit that's going to cost the Dems the election again. Who the fuck do they think they are winning over with this? Only a former CAP dumbass would think this is wise.
BTW, all her arguments are highly debatable. Any actual journalist should be able to point out some pretty simple reasons for the divide, although that might be asking too much of MSNBC. I'd argue bringing up sexism would explain some hardcore opposition but there are basic ideological differences at play. To ignore that is extremely dishonest. Not to mention plenty of polling data over the Summer showing women being the majority of Bernie's supporters.
Being OK for investigating and actually voting in favor of impeachment are two different things
Of course.
It's still something that will be used against him in a primary challenge, though. That's why Republicans haven't come close to anything remotely bipartisan or nonpartisan in recent years.
Post by SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal on Sept 27, 2019 21:52:15 GMT -5
That's maybe the only time Trump has said anything close to insightful about US foreign policy. Not that that justifies it at all. I'm just impressed he finally got something right.