General Politics Discussion (VI) [ARCHIVED] • Page 22

It's the law/rules(?).

 

Booker's early platform:

That's "pretty good". That's pretty fucking good, actually.

Kamala Harris' platform:

again, pretty fucking good.

There are others in this race that do those things but are better/more trustworthy on them...i.e. Bernie and Warren.....and yes, Harris is a cop and Booker took be Pharma money and has yet to update his mostly shitty views on charter schools. But those two platforms are pretty fucking good.

 

No, it's not. My opinion remains the same.

Because we know he won't actually do it and will actively fight to not enact any of it. His own words. That's actually bad. Not good. The opposite of good. Bad.

 

This actually makes me a little nervous that they're wrapping it up as soon as Barr gets in there...makes me nervous that either 1. Mueller knew his days were numbered with Barr and had to cut it off ASAP with whatever it is they have, or 2. Barr already started pressuring them to wrap it up.


Probably just being paranoid though.

 

This is quite literally what people said about HRC's more leftward positions she took during both the primaries and the general. The response from most people here every time was that may be possible, but it's up to people to keep the pressure up to force the politicians to do it instead of letting them get comfortable. I don't think it matters who the nominee is, even if it's Bernie, I think that's going to remain true.

 

He. Said. It. While. Running. For. The. Nomination.

I don't know how to make this more clear. That's ... bad.

 

I'll just restate what I said earlier then---It doesn't matter who you elect, especially if it's a senator who's been in the senate minority for the last 2-6 years, you're almost definitely not losing the filibuster. You probably need a new dem senate leader to make that happen, too. Are the rest of the Dems throwing Chuck out and jumping over Durbin to give it to Warren?

 

LOCK HER UP LOCK HER UP

 

If someone is running on a "I will literally actively fight against what's needed to get my policy proposals done" ... I don't understand how anyone could make the argument their platform is good. They're telling us it's not worth the website hosting fees for the text.

 

Yeah, I disagree.

 

Let's have that conversation. That's a fine place to start from. Not "I literally will fight against doing it."

 

if you think booker will do anything to help the green new deal pass as it is currently written ive got a fucking bridge to sell you bro

 

lol

 

Us: "We should go get tacos."

Dorey Wooker: "I support getting Tacos but I will actively take the air out of the tires so we can't get there."

Us: "Uh, you don't actually support us getting and eating tacos."

David online: "His pro taco policy is fine enough guys you weren't ever getting tacos anyway."

 

lol at Dorey Wooker.

 

Bernie/Devito

 

My point was I think the other senators running feel the same as he does, they're just not saying it out loud. If a couple of junior senators start throwing that idea around post-election, I have little doubt they'd team up with senate leadership to quash that idea. They've all been using the power of the filibuster since 2014 and no way their buddies in the senate let them start vocalizing support for abolishing it without major pushback.

And honestly the Dems might not even have the Senate in 2021 and I doubt they'd push to end it in that scenario where they're still the minority. 2023 at the earliest.

 

Surprised he knows who Hoover is

 

Warren and Pete have both said differently. So, you're factually wrong on the first point. And no one else has said they would actively fight against getting rid of it that I've seen. Which is very different than the languages used by others.

 

Simple search of Kamala Harris ... was looking for her exact language on the fillbuster ... and this is the first result box:


Jesus fucking christ.

 

Lol, Tiffany

 

giant meteor too OP

 

Yeah it’s bad. It’s so bad.

As for your actual results, she have a sidestepping answer about how maybe the ‘rules should be reviewed’