Yeah, her best result was 3rd in Iowa. Everyone owes her gratitude for eviscerating Bloomberg though.
If you liked Warren's policy positions at all, Bernie is probably your next best bet--some of his proposals go farther than Warren's, but the legislative process will likely scale them back a bit anyhow. He's also way more likely than Biden to eviscerate Bloomberg on stage imo. Not only does he have a visceral dislike of the billionaire class, but he actually has the ability to string a coherent sentence together consistently (sorry, Joe).
She used to give me the occasional warm fuzzy then she started attack ads on Bernie with the rest of the pack. Make no mistake, that if the time comes and the DNC has chosen her as the anointed one I will be voting for her come November. But she's just another politician. Bernie isn't.
That's essentially it. Decades of consistent advocacy for principled beliefs in combination with a refusal to take the money at the core of our corrupt government. There are exactly zero other candidates that can be expected to reign in the abuses of the oligarchs.
I follow until this. We've reigned in the abuses of oligarchs before. Look at the marginal tax rate over the last century: https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx With some lobbying reform and some progressive tax reform, we're in a much better spot. Create a public option, and employers are going to dump everyone on government healthcare in no time. IMO Bernie frames things in black and white. History suggests that leaders that do so, on either side of the spectrum, govern poorly. I'm hopeful that a President Sanders will encourage legislation that can pass. I worry that he'll won't, and we'll be no better, but lose time.There are exactly zero other candidates that can be expected to reign in the abuses of the oligarchs.
It sounds like a high rate, but it wasn't the effective rate. The Individual Income Tax Act of 1944 PDF specified a tax of $156,820 for net income of $200,000 (78.41%) and 91% for excess over $200,000. It also set an overall limit: "The tax imposed by this section and section 11, computed without regard to the credits provided in sections 31, 32 and 35, shall in no event exceed in the aggregate 90 per centum of the net income of the taxpayer for the taxable year." The rate alone doesn't explain much without looking at the exemptions. For example, parents did not have to count income received as a result of their working children. Of more interest to the oligarchs, trade and business deductions, work-related travel and lodging expenses, rent and royalties deductions, depreciation and depletion, losses from sales or exchange, charitable contributions, medical expenses, capital losses all provided opportunities to reduce the amount of net income exposed to the tax rate. Collections are also dependent on enforcement. I doubt that the tax-avoidance schemes we hear about today are much more effective than those used in the past.In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars). That’s a high tax rate.
Shrug. Maybe that's the wiser opinion to hold. I know that it was the perspective held by many in 2016 and look where that got us. Like I have said in the past, show me a candidate who is truly anti-war, anti big business, pro union, pro - universal health care, they will have my vote. Other than Bernie there is not a single Democratic candidate who has shown themselves to be in favor of these goals. Without exception the rest of the democratic field has been content to take corporate money and Pander to corporate interest. I am certain that if any of the others were elected they would not take on the major donors of the DNC. A candidate who takes corporate money will never get a cent from me.
Why so cynical? Bernie, Biden, and Warren are by all accounts, good people. We have the privilege to vote. Hell, we can run for office if we want. No one is perfect. I respect politicians like Bernie, Warren, and Biden for putting themselves out there and trying to make a better world. Bloomberg? He kinda seems like an asshole. Trump is definitely an asshole.Ballot is due tomorrow, now I gotta go read about which one I hate the least.
lazy thinking/word choices.. election season burnout... excuses. You raise excellent points. I actually don't hate any of them. I have just been let down in little ways by most of the candidates except Warren who really started connecting and resonating with me. So somewhere between hearing that she doesn't have a chance, and thinking of voting for a white, male septuagenarian... I was a little bitter. Bur you are actually right. We have a lot to celebrate. Every one of the candidates (sans Bloomberg) would be a massive improvement... and even Bloomberg would be some kind of improvement over the orangutan in chief. I genuinely appreciate the challenge on this one my friend. Sometimes I need to be reminded of the reasons to hope and be positive.Why so cynical?
Vox: "Lucy Flores isn’t alone. Joe Biden has a long history of touching women inappropriately. "Biden
by all acounts, good people
I don't think it is excusable behavior, and I don't consider it was just "Joe being Joe". However, I don't consider it a clear sign of perversion either. It's something in the middle. Biden was too touchy. I had old aunts and uncles that were the very same. Posing for a photo, it felt like you were a prop they were holding. Kisses from old aunts on the mouth. It's no longer tolerable, and that's a good thing. I don't take it to mean that Joe isn't a good person. I don't take the fact that Bernie told Warren that a woman can't win the presidency to mean that he isn't a good person either. These are character flaws. They do harm to others. We all have them, and we should all work to correct them. The degrees of harm really do matter.
Even if you believe that Bernie said a woman can't win, that's not a character flaw, it's at worst a misguided political judgment. There's a huge difference between "a woman cannot win this election" and "a woman should not be able to win this election." Do I agree that a woman can't win the election? No. Do I think it would be more difficult for a woman than for a man? Absolutely. Equivocating numerous sexual harassment allegations with a single alleged misguided political judgment is laughable. The degrees of harm really do matter.I don't take the fact that Bernie told Warren that a woman can't win the presidency to mean that he isn't a good person either. These are character flaws.
I'm inclined to believe Warren didn't make it up. But, I could be wrong. Only they know. That said, given that 50% of the people in the country are women, I do think that believing that a woman cannot win the Presidency is both a character flaw and misguided political judgement. If he told Warren as much, that is a character flaw, IMO. Does Biden have numerous sexual harassment allegations against him?
Genuine question: what's the difference between Bernie theoretically saying "a woman can't win in 2020" and my sister, a Warren supporter, saying "it's much more difficult for a woman to get elected than a man"? Take the latter statement, add the fact that winning in 2020 will be difficult for any Democrat, and the logical conclusion is "it would be incredibly difficult (impossible?) for a woman to win in 2020." See the Vox article I linked above.I do think that believing that a woman cannot win the Presidency is both a character flaw and misguided political judgement.
Does Biden have numerous sexual harassment allegations against him?
I'd say that the main difference is between 'difficult' and 'cannot'. Hillary won the popular vote, and lost the electoral vote by narrow margins (10k in MI). There's also the difference between a man or a woman speaking to the issue. Finally, the man Bernie telling the woman candidate Warren is different. Not to diminish the complaints, or excuse his actions, but I don't think a journalist would say that Biden has numerous sexual harassment allegations against him. One can say that Trump has numerous sexual harassment allegations against him. How do we draw a difference?See the Vox article I linked above.
And the electoral landscape has changed dramatically in 4 years. The claim "a woman cannot win in 2020" is a misguided political judgement. It's not a statement of value.I'd say that the main difference is between 'difficult' and 'cannot'. Hillary won the popular vote, and lost the electoral vote by narrow margins (10k in MI).
Not to diminish the complaints, or excuse his actions, but I don't think a journalist would say that Biden has numerous sexual harassment allegations against him. One can say that Trump has numerous sexual harassment allegations against him. How do we draw a difference?