Dems, Dem-lites and Independents, who ya backing at this point and why?
POSTED BY: WISHIMAY
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:53
VIEWED: 19566
PAGE 2 of 24
Quote:A: You're not a Democrat.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tulsi Gabbard. She has a better foreign policy.
B: You're not an American.
C: Fuck off.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:Quote:A: You're not a Democrat.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tulsi Gabbard. She has a better foreign policy.
B: You're not an American.
C: Fuck off.
You're not a person, you're a badly- programmed bot.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tulsi Gabbard. She has a better foreign policy.
As far as healthcare is concerned, that too would take a different approach. There are several ways to approach the problem: one of them is to eliminate the horrible inefficiencies of the health insurances by having the government take over the insurance function. Plus, as the only "buyer" of medical services, the Federal government would have huge leverage in setting prices. Instead of competing on prices, medical services would have to compete on outcomes.
Anyway, until we control our military spending these are all pipe dreams because the military just sucks everyone dry.
Having read several articles on Mrs. Gabbard today, I find she is just a pissier, more confused version of Bernie, and I think her allegiances partially lie elsewhere.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabba
rd-2020-president-campaign-explained
This part seems to sum her up well.
In 2017, the socialist publication Jacobin published a brutal takedown entitled “Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend,” focusing on dispelling the myth of Gabbard as an opponent of America’s wars abroad.
“Gabbard’s almost singular focus on the damage these wars inflict domestically, and her comparative lack of focus on the carnage they wreak in the countries under attack, is troubling,” Jacobin’s Branko Marcetic writes. “It is nationalism in antiwar garb, reinforcing instead of undercutting the toxic rhetoric that treats foreigners as less deserving of dignity than Americans.”
Just two weeks ago, the Intercept, a left-aligned antiwar outlet, published a deeply reported expose on Gabbard’s ties to Hindu nationalists. Gabbard has long supported Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, an anti-Islam right-winger who had previously been barred from entering the US due to being personally implicated in deadly anti-Muslim riots.
As much as I would like to see a woman Prez, it's going to have to be the right person at just the right time, and that time ISN'T now.
I have long believed that in order to have a female Prez, we are going to have to have a strong VICE Prez first. Trump has proved that the culture of toxic masculinity and misogyny is far too pervasive to force a woman into that position without acclimating the low-brows to reality.
We're going to HAVE to have a female VP FIRST.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
2. I would vote for a dead dog over Trump.
The whole thing with him and his father being "born in Germany"....It couldn't get any clearer that there is something seriously wrong, and we have no procedures or Dr. McCoy to stand up and say "You sir, are altered and are hereby relieved of duty!"
I feel like I'm in the bad Star Trek dimension. Every day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Tulsi Gabbard. She has a better foreign policy.
As far as healthcare is concerned, that too would take a different approach. There are several ways to approach the problem: one of them is to eliminate the horrible inefficiencies of the health insurances by having the government take over the insurance function. Plus, as the only "buyer" of medical services, the Federal government would have huge leverage in setting prices. Instead of competing on prices, medical services would have to compete on outcomes.
Anyway, until we control our military spending these are all pipe dreams because the military just sucks everyone dry. SIGNY
Having read several articles on Mrs. Gabbard today, I find she is just a pissier, more confused version of Bernie, and I think her allegiances partially lie elsewhere.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabba
rd-2020-president-campaign-explained
I read the VOX article, and altho the article troubles me, it's not Gabbard that's the problem.
The article fails to mention, for example, that Tulsi didn't just "support" Sanders in 2016, she actually quit her role as DNC vice chair and as a superdelegate because of the underhnded (in her view) way that the DNC was treating Sanders
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/28/tulsi-gabbard-quits-dn
c-support-bernie-Sanders. She wouldnt "go along to get alomg".
And Vox's view of Syria, Gabbard, and terrorism is wrong, and stupid. If Gabbard is anti-Muslim, how could she wind up "quasi-supporting" Assad who is himself Muslim? The article then goes on to repeat the trope that Assad was responsible for the "worst excesses" in te war in Syria, overlooking the fact that the radical Muslims terrorized the populations that they controlled, attempted to "ethnically cleanse" groups like the Yazidis, took captured women and girls as sex slaves, used chemical weapons, and dreamt of new and excitng ways to torture and kill civilians - including burning them alive in iron cages and setting off chain explosives that had been set on the necks of lines of captured men. The fact that this article would soft-peddle the barbrity of jihadists tells me that their integrity/ objectivity is questionable, at best.
In sum,the article seems to have a distinct DNC-establishment bias against Gabbard. In fact, it has all the hallmarks of a "hit piece", full of misinformation, innuendo, and carefully-selected facts. And quite frankly, I find the DNC to be a corrupt anti-democratic organzation which supports corrupt warhawk candidates, and with few redeeming points
Quote:I don't fimd that troubling at all. As a American candidate, she has to appeal to American voters and represent American interests. One of the problems of our foreign policy is how often Americans are convinced that we HAVE to stick our nose into other people's affairs and represent someone else's interests. We have destroyed many nations and killed over a million people in the name of R2P or democracy or whatever. Maybe a little enlightened self-interest would save us - and others -from our mistakes.
This part seems to sum her up well.
In 2017, the socialist publication Jacobin published a brutal takedown entitled “Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend,” focusing on dispelling the myth of Gabbard as an opponent of America’s wars abroad.
“Gabbard’s almost singular focus on the damage these wars inflict domestically, and her comparative lack of focus on the carnage they wreak in the countries under attack, is troubling,” Jacobin’s Branko Marcetic writes. “It is nationalism in antiwar garb, reinforcing instead of undercutting the toxic rhetoric that treats foreigners as less deserving of dignity than Americans.”
Quote:
Just two weeks ago, the Intercept, a left-aligned antiwar outlet, published a deeply reported expose on Gabbard’s ties to Hindu nationalists. Gabbard has long supported Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, an anti-IslamNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As for a woman, I would still vote for Sarah Palin if she was the top of the ticket. She has been the best candidate on a ticket since at least 2006, maybe since 1986. If she would have been the top of the ticket I would have voted for her, despite having Ultra Liberal RINO McCain as her running mate.
As an independent, I haven't seen anybody jump out at me. I doubt I'll vote for Trump or Weld.
I wonder if the Clinton Crime Family Foundation will fund a run for Chelsea. She doesn't seem the cackling Harpy like Hilliary, more empty headed like Willie.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This Troll peddles so many lies, they're hard to keep track of. Just because this Troll's family and friends are all incapable of income beyond Minimum Wage, does not mean the same applies to the rest of the world.
Originally posted: Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Bernie. Walks it like he talks it, always has.
Care to elaborate? What do you LIKE?
That, and I don't support $15 an hour minimum wage, or "reparations" to anyone.
No teenager is worth $15 an hour and just about everyone can get Social Security.
This country is going broke and making decisions that would hasten that are counter-productive to us continuing to BE a country.
$15 should be the minimum. Most people who work for minimum are NOT teenagers.
Lettuce take a look. From BLS data, in thousands.
March 2019: Civilian noninstitutional Population over 18: 249,670
Civilian noninstitutional Population total: 258,537.
Civilian noninstitutional Population age 20 and over: 241,838.
Looks like BLS does not count working teenagers under age 16.
So, age 16 & 17: 8,867. Age 18 & 19: 7,832.
Total Employed: 156,441. Over 20: 151,554. Over 18: 154,839. Age 25 and over: 137,630.
Employed age 16 & 17: 1,601. Employed age 18 & 19: 3,285. Employed age 20-24: 13,925.
Part-Time workers: 27,622.
The most recent data I found on Minimum Wage was from 2015. For the moment, let us assume the data is comparable, and extrapolation is possible.
Hourly workers age 16-19, 11% are paid at or below Minimum Wage. That would mean for March 2019.
Hourly workers age 25 or older, 2% are paid at or below Minimum Wage. That would mean for March 2019.
Part-Time workers, March 2015: 27,655.
Employed age 16-17: 1,445. Age 18-19: 3,046. Age 20-24: 13,584.
870,000 workers were paid Minimum Wage.
1,691,000 workers were paid below Minimum Wage, normally meaning they worked for Commission and/or tips.
Hourly workers age 16-19 paid Minimum Wage: 258.
Hourly workers age 20-24 paid Minimum Wage: 218.
I found some data from 2017.
Total workers at Minimum Wage: 542.
Workers age 16-19 paid Minimum Wage: 172. 32%
Workers age 20-24 paid Minimum Wage: 149. 27%
Workers age 25 or more paid Minimum Wage: 221. 41%
Primary Minimum Wage job is Part-Time: 379.
Primary Minimum Wage job is Full-time: 121.
Primary Minimum Wage job is 40 hours or more: 90.
So, Primary job is Minimum Wage: 500.
U-3: 5.1%. U-6: 10.1%. Involuntary Part-Time: 3.9%. (6127)
From 2012:
Total workers paid Minimum Wage: 1,566.
Workers age 16-19 paid Minimum Wage: 484. 31%
Workers age 20-24 paid Minimum Wage: 378. 24%
Workers age 25 or more paid Minimum Wage: 704. 45%
Jan 2012 U-3: 8.8%. U-6: 16.2%. Involuntary Part-Time: 5.7% (8747)
2019 U-3: 4.2%. U-6: 8.0%. Involuntary Part-Time: 3.0%. (4800)
Estimated workers paid Minimum Wage: 353.
Estimated workers age 25+ paid Minimum Wage: 39%, 137.
Estimated workers age 16-19 paid Minimum Wage: 33%, 118.
Estimated workers age 20-24 paid Minimum Wage: 98.
Estimated Primary job is Minimum Wage: 325.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tulsi Gabbard for foreign policy. As I've mentioned before, I have 2 items on my list 1) not blowing up the planet, and 2) addressing global warming. She looks like she will be focused at least on 1).
Plus I've seen the hit pieces on her in Salon, one of the MSM's outlets (can't remember if it was NYTimes or WaPo), and ZH. And obviously republicans are against her. And now the one in Vox. In my mind she must be doing something right if everyone in the system is against her, because ...
All the usual suspects have got us in this mess by doing what they always do, and they're not going to get us out with more of the same.
We need 'different', not 'more'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As for minimum wage ... my idea is that if something is necessary to do, then it's worth paying a living wage to get it done.
The idea that profit is and should be the one and only value by which we measure worth is a narrow and false idea. Here are two example about profit, and how it doesn't measure 'worth' very well. It's profitable to kill and rob people. Yet we don't allow it. It's not profitable to bear and raise children. Yet it's absolutely vital to society's survival. In neither case does profit measure worth at all.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
As for a woman, I would still vote for Sarah Palin if she was the top of the ticket. She has been the best candidate on a ticket since at least 2006, maybe since 1986.
Palin and her whole hypocritical family are a hot stupid mess.
She shouldn't EVER be in charge of ANYTHING. Maybe running a tabloid...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME