Quote :

"Problem is she is drawing support from progressives AND Biden-weary moderates."

I don't see a problem here.

Quote :

"I think right now I would look more toward a Warren/Buttegig ticket"

I was Warren/Booker from the beginning, but I would just as happily see Buttigieg in that VP spot. I'd like to see cabinet positions for Yang, Castro, and Messam, and most of the rest of the candidates in the House and Senate.

10/16/2019 12:11:05 PM

So Beto, Tulsi and Castro are not advancing to the next debate yet. I want Tulsi.

10/16/2019 2:57:42 PM

Quote :

"they are being unfair to warren piling on her about medicare for all for not saying she will raise taxes on the middle class. Its a gotcha republican question that she is correct in refusing to answer."

Honestly, it's all a bad faith argument. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

10/16/2019 3:32:46 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/16/politics/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all/index.html

Quote :

"Elizabeth Warren's campaign said on Wednesday that it is studying a range of options for paying for "Medicare for All," leaving open the possibility that the presidential candidate may ultimately diverge from Sen. Bernie Sanders on how his sweeping health care plan -- which Warren has endorsed -- would be paid for. "

astonishing ability to respond quickly to environmental stimuli

10/16/2019 7:52:49 PM

https://twitter.com/aaronblake/status/1185161952374542336?s=21

See, part of me just wants Biden to go away and drop out because this nonsense is just playing into Trump grievance bullshit. But the other part of me knows the right and the MSM (because of the hack gap) will absolute pull this on any one of the candidates whether or not there is a story there and allowing them to do it is just capitulation.

If you are a Warren fan, Sanders fan or any other the right WILL get the MSM to bite on a story about your candidate. Just hope they have the guts and wherewithal to tell them to fuck off. In all honesty, from what I’ve see, the only campaign that would have the balls to do that is Bernie’s.

[Edited on October 18, 2019 at 8:00 AM. Reason : X]

10/18/2019 7:59:29 AM

if you want a laugh, look at what buttigieg said about m4a before and after healthcare lobbyists bought his campaign

10/18/2019 8:21:55 AM

10/18/2019 9:29:58 AM

Quote :

"CORRECTION (Oct. 17, 2019, 3:10 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article misattributed a quotation from Elizabeth Warren about "a corrupt and unfair system." She did not say, “I get a little bit tired — I must say — of people defending a system which is dysfunctional, which is cruel, 87 million uninsured, 30,000 people dying every single year." Bernie Sanders said that. The incorrect quotation has been removed from this article and one from Warren has been added"

10/18/2019 9:50:49 AM

^Well of course they changed it after being called out and exposed but what kind of new source edits stories after release them? no credible one. and if these aren't intentional, why do they always seem to be in favor of their own narrative and against bernie?

Also, how low can Hillary go? The most shameful loser of all time.

10/19/2019 1:55:32 PM

Quote :

"what kind of new source edits stories after release them? "

Lmao at this douche

10/19/2019 3:57:30 PM

Pretty sure it takes credibility and accountability to print a retraction. As apposed Trump and his far-right media propaganda machine who lean into their lies after being called out.

10/19/2019 11:38:03 PM

Huge rally for Sanders today, 25k people

10/20/2019 12:21:24 AM

The point is that real journalism involves a strict editing and vetting process that takes place before information is put out. Having to retract something after potentially millions of people read it and processed it as fact should be considered a complete failure. People don't usually return to articles multiple times after reading them once so the damage is done.

These large media outlets have entire teams of editors who should be reading articles and carefully checking their accuracy before anything goes out. This means they are either a.) entirely incompetent in terms of editing or b.)intentionally spreading misinformation knowing that they can retract it later and still retain credibility with their viewers.

This is a long time pattern from MSM and people who don't align with the agenda of their mistakes know this. Trump, of course took advantage of this environment by using it to completely discredit the media and replace it with his own set of "alternative facts. Media integrity was eroded enough that the Trump crowd could easily throw it all out of the window in favor of Trump's lies.

You can't view the #FAKENEWS trend as a two way battle. Just because Trump is fighting against these media outlets doesn't mean you have to blindly support their faults. Holding them accountable would actually erode away the ground Trump's entire strategy stands on.

10/20/2019 12:52:48 AM

I’m worried about sanders heart issues. Odds are very against him

10/20/2019 2:18:18 AM

rEtTRaCTiOnS aRe bAd



[Edited on October 20, 2019 at 10:25 AM. Reason : ^ common procedure, clinton had it done in his 60's]

10/20/2019 10:24:33 AM

What kind of person who’s working to undercover the facts and truth would publicly admit they made a mistake ‘after-the fact’?

What world am I living in where it’s OK to admit to making a mistake and then correcting it???

10/20/2019 1:07:00 PM

Tulsi is a real-life Captain Marvel. Her war against Hillary heats up.

10/20/2019 2:59:03 PM

Its hard to tell who is being disingenuous so i'll just assume everyone is sincere and that my point was not clearly communicated.

The problem is not that they admit to publishing a mistake and retract it. The problem is that they continue to publish these mistakes in the first place. Anyone who watched the debate would have been able to catch that mistake before giving it the go ahead. This isn't some internet message-board. Journalistic integrity involves an effective editing process before anything is published. For an article like this, someone on the editing team would read that part and pull up the clip from the debate to verify that the quote was written word for word. At that point, they would have easily noticed that it was inaccurate. Somehow, this process broke down or was non-existent. What would have happened if the public hadn't seen the debate and been able to call out the mistake?

Its like if someone does something to you that they regret and apologize but then continue to do the same thing and continue to apologize. At some point, you realize that the apology itself is insincere. Retractions are meaningless if they aren't taking action to prevent them from being needed in the future.

[Edited on October 20, 2019 at 3:45 PM. Reason : it gives the impression that they aren't really sorry.... but they are sorry they got caught]

10/20/2019 3:43:22 PM

TSB is basically unreadable with these guys ^ ^ everywhere

10/21/2019 3:59:51 AM

Quote :

" I’m worried about sanders heart issues. Odds are very against him."

I don’t think his heart attack is a big deal, tbh. If he seems healthy on the trail he’ll be fine. And I suspect some of the recent negative polling outliers will correct as he gets further away from the procedure.

I just think he’ll have a hard time beating Warren. Like it or not they are in the “same lane” among most non-twitter people. Of course Sanders has a more consistent track record and is an actual D Socialist but to most people pure ideology just doesn’t matter — also, yeah, the establishment Dems will absolutely support Warren over him.

10/21/2019 7:57:21 AM

sanders: still kiling it fundraising, good performance in the debate, hosts the largest campaign event, collects important endorsement

nbc:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-struggles-rebound-staffing-strategy-health-n1068571

lol

10/21/2019 8:50:02 AM

despicable use of right-wing talking points from klobuchar:

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1186098527211929600

10/21/2019 8:59:58 AM

^^ He's raising more money than his competitors (notably from regular people, not from huge donors iircc) yet he's losing in the polls?

10/21/2019 10:05:04 AM

he's also still polling well

10/21/2019 10:15:27 AM

got it, classic selective polling to fit your narrative.

10/21/2019 11:31:31 AM

He's still top 3, hes just stagnant compared to Warren. It also looks like that article cherry picked his worst national poll from the last few weeks. And they went way back to September for the NH poll. More recent polls show a much closer race there.

So its selective use of polls, yes, but by nbc

[Edited on October 21, 2019 at 11:53 AM. Reason : E]

10/21/2019 11:43:42 AM

Polls are just a snapshot in time, are not betting odds, change as new information comes in, etc, etc.

But you’re right in that Bernie has essentially been at 15 since late April in the RCP average. Biden was at his peak of 43 then. I’d say Bernie’s biggest problem is that practically NONE of the 15% that abandoned Biden in that time have broken towards Sanders and almost all have broken to Warren.

I understand Bernie supporters don’t even want or like centrist Biden voters but he also NEEDS them to win a Democratic primary.

[Edited on October 21, 2019 at 12:53 PM. Reason : X]

10/21/2019 12:51:57 PM

Quote :

"Polls are just a snapshot in time, are not betting odds, change as new information comes in, etc, etc. "

Sure, that's why it's silly to write articles off of lone polls

10/21/2019 12:59:49 PM

Quote :

"I understand Bernie supporters don’t even want or like centrist Biden voters but he also NEEDS them to win a Democratic primary."

no one doesn't want them, the point is that if you change your positions to appeal to them you will destroy your movement and base of support which is critical to their performance in both the primary and general

10/21/2019 1:06:30 PM

https://twitter.com/JulianCastro/status/1186297637823234049

Castro on verge of dropping out?

10/21/2019 2:57:50 PM

so the bernies will vote for warren and the bidens will vote for warren. whats the problem?

[Edited on October 21, 2019 at 3:35 PM. Reason : simple]

10/21/2019 3:33:42 PM

dab!

10/21/2019 3:35:45 PM

bernie bros are really annoying and dumb.

10/21/2019 3:38:18 PM

What are your opinions on anything other than how me and dtr and others are shitty? I'm sure you've expressed some, but 99% of your posts seem to be short comments about how someone, usually a tdubber, is dumb.

[Edited on October 21, 2019 at 4:44 PM. Reason : E]

10/21/2019 4:44:05 PM

Quote :

"whats the problem?"

The problem is that the Bernies, Warrens, and Bidens are not the entire electorate. The group of people left out of the poll because they do not yet intend to vote are much much bigger than all of the people in the poll combined.

Quote :

"I understand Bernie supporters don’t even want or like centrist Biden voters but he also NEEDS them to win a Democratic primary."

This is false for the same reason. The average person who doesn't intend to vote will become a Bernie voter once they hear his platform. This is why the media's role is important. They are working so hard to make sure Bernie is underrepresented or even misrepresented in everything they put out.

You guys are under the impression that taking votes that belong to other candidates are the only way to gain support. Its almost like you think the entire country has picked a candidate which couldn't be further from the truth. It leads you to believe wild things like Stein helped Trump, or Bernie's performance in polls that include "people who intend to vote in the primary" have anything to do with his electability.

The facts you overlook are illustrated here.

The argument being made here is that Bernie has to take some of the colored squares and cannot win unless he gets those specific squares. Its ignoring the fact that he could win without any of the colored squares by pulling from the white squares in the "People who don't intend to vote in primaries". Well that would require him registering people and having the organization capability to drive people to vote on primary day. Well, he has the most funding to make that happen.

Its even more drastic in the general.


[Edited on October 21, 2019 at 7:05 PM. Reason : most people don't vote because "both of the candidates are bad"]

10/21/2019 6:52:39 PM

So this weekend I had a chance to catch up with some friends I haven't seen in a while. One comes from a pretty heavy democrat family and the other is fairly right wing, and was strongly against Clinton.

While they both despise Trump, and refuse to vote for him, they also said they would abstain from voting if either Bernie or Warren were to win. The conservative, actually plans to vote for Sanford or something, but I asked the democrat why and he isn't a fan of the strong anti-business takes both of them have. It was really interesting to hear since this is a concern I have but not so much so that I would abstain from voting.

But overall the conversation concerned me because even people who claim to despise Trump and want him out of office immediately, who are both even fans of impeachment, may not vote this time around. Sure it is a small sample, but it was 100% of the people with whom I was present and definitely makes me question the strength of a democratic turnout.

10/22/2019 9:59:47 AM

Quote :

"strong anti-business"

What does that even mean?

10/22/2019 10:12:11 AM

Lol, anti-business

10/22/2019 10:42:24 AM

It means that there are policies of both those campaigns that conflict with both macro and micro economic theory, such as talking points about forcing companies, e.g. GM, to hire back and increase the wages of employees, when in fact the issue with GM is that there was no demand for the products those workers were building.

It means they have approaches that even conflict with behavioral economics, when considering whether or not the plan could work on a personal incentive model, such as having employees vote for who sits on the board, as if those people are going to be equally versed in running a company or as if these appointed people's objectives and goals won't change once how they are being incentivized changes.

It means they have policies that are designed with the intent of being punitive for businesses for the sake of pointing businesses as a boogey man or the problem with our social structure, such as breaking up businesses for the sake or breaking them up because those businesses are vaguely too big, despite the fact that those companies do not currently break any established laws around monopoly or compete practices.

Basically, it means exactly what was said. Both of those candidates have policies that weaken businesses as a major part of their platform.

10/22/2019 10:43:18 AM

I'm for stakeholders (which employees often are) of companies (of a certain size at least) having some say on who runs them. I don't think it should be mandated for all companies (small businesses already often do a better job of serving those employee stakeholders when there aren't layers and layers of management between workers and senior management), and Bernie's policy already only applies to companies with > $100M annual revenue. I'm also not sure I feel Bernie's proposed 45% of board positions being elected by workers is the right balance, but it's not a dealbreaker for me

Quote :

" having employees citizens vote for who sits on the board government, as if those people are going to be equally versed in running a company country"

10/22/2019 11:06:53 AM

Not every company has a board, especially smaller ones, so with that I believe the threshold for board approval will apply to larger, and likely publicly traded companies. I'm not sure there is a good justification for the employees to have a say, when really it is the owners of the business (shareholders) who are responsible for determining how a business is run.

And while I see your point by rephrasing my position in the terms of democracy, I'd say that there isn't a solid argument for businesses to be a democracy. Thus, the same rules need not apply. I'd also say the comparison is small since businesses are developed to generate a profit and government is betterment o the people. In this case I would say that the people may not be the best to identify how to generate a profit, but they are reasonable source for how people should be governed.

10/22/2019 11:27:24 AM

i too have questions about this anti strong anti business voter. would you describe them as low information?

10/22/2019 11:42:19 AM

Quote :

"I'm not sure there is a good justification for the employees to have a say, when really it is the owners of the business (shareholders) who are responsible for determining how a business is run."

How are shareholders any more versed in running a company than the employees?

10/22/2019 12:20:10 PM

It was more a statement around how I could see a logical argument for shareholders because they own the company and are at least therefore responsible for how the company should be run. I don't see a valid case for run of the mill employees.

10/22/2019 12:40:27 PM

But employees, whose livelihoods depend on the well-being of the company, aren't responsible for how the company should be run?

10/22/2019 1:02:30 PM

Workers with no financial stake other than salary are already running businesses all over the country. Yes, the owners and stakeholders ultimately have the final say, but they are usually not the ones overseeing day-to-day operations.

10/22/2019 1:14:18 PM

Quote :

"aren't responsible for how the company should be run?"

They are paid for their time and skills to deliver a directive. This varies in degrees of tactical and strategic, based on level within the company. As ^ points out, in some ways their directive is to engage in the day to day operations but this is in no way the same as carrying out the strategic directives of a company, such as which plants to close, what lines of business they will invest in, the extent to which they'll hire or acquire, etc.

Salary in exchange for labor is the agreement between company and employee, not percentage in influence of strategic direction. Traditionally, this is reserved for investors, who instead of receiving direct funds from the company contribute their own funds, and as a return on their investment get a say in the direction. Simply put company pays employee as their return and shareholders get ownership rights (return on the equity, say in operations) as a return for paying the company.

10/22/2019 1:41:55 PM

^You are really just explaining how capitalism works and this comes down to how much capitalism we want to allow.

I think the anti-business characterization is an accurate one because all labor issues come down to the struggle between businesses and worker.

In the pure form of this struggle, a policy can either be anti-business or anti-worker. To deny that you are anti-business is to deny that you are pro-worker. I think Warren tries to skirt the edges and deny this ideology by reiterating that she is a capitalist who is only in favor of "good capitalism". Both of these candidates do want to weaken businesses and that should be seen as a good thing because it also means that both candidates want to strengthen the power and well-being of workers by shifting some of the power to them.

Quote :

"I'd say that there isn't a solid argument for businesses to be a democracy."

Don't say there isn't a solid argument just because you don't agree with it. I'd recommend Richard Wolf's "Democracy at work" as it lays out a really sound argument for businesses to be a democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VdbFzwe8fQ
Here is a good clip from Michael Moore's film that illustrates the idea at work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1i0Miy6T7A
Richard D. Wolff, Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Gar Alperovitz on workplace democracy.

[Edited on October 22, 2019 at 2:10 PM. Reason : workers or businesses, support one]

10/22/2019 2:09:07 PM

Does anyone actually read Earl's posts?

10/22/2019 2:15:15 PM

naw

10/22/2019 2:55:18 PM