edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 04:41 pm
They lied to you about Vietnam.
They lied to you about Iraq.
They lied to you about Syria.
They lied to you about Honduras.
They lied to you about Libya.

So why would you believe what they're saying about Venezuela?
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 05:04 pm
FACTS:

Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, & Elizabeth Warren are all running for POTUS in 2020.

None have published 2020 platforms, but they all have Shop & Donate pages.

@SenSanders
isn't running in 2020 (yet), but you CAN read his platform.

#Bernie2020
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 05:13 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
This is utter bullshit. Harris' positions on near all issues is no less progressive than Sanders'.
Well, I'm not sure that Sanders has a record of maliciously sending innocent people to prison like Harris does.

But I agree that Kamala Harris is the perfect scumbag to lead the left.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 05:14 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
The trouble about the "obsession with public debt" is that it is used very effectively by rightists. As are the all the hoary old warnings about "socialism". My experience has been that voters are easily scared.
The left sees present day Venezuela and says "I want to do that to America".

No thanks.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 05:23 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
They lied to you about Vietnam.
They lied to you about Iraq.
They lied to you about Syria.
They lied to you about Honduras.
They lied to you about Libya.
So why would you believe what they're saying about Venezuela?
I think I know the supposed lies about Vietnam and Iraq, and it is disputable that they were lies. But let's set that aside for a minute.

I haven't heard any lies about Syria or Libya or Venezuela, although events in those places have certainly been in the news over the years.

I haven't heard anything at all about Honduras. It isn't even in the news.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 06:19 pm
Have progressives come out about how happy they are for a possible third party candidacy of Howard Schultz??

Not of his policies but of the most recent independent candidate not beholden to big money donors and not part of the party structure.

It’s what they said they wanted, so I’m sure they’re thrilled that he may run.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 06:39 pm
Schultz nose-dived in his debut week.
maporsche
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 06:52 pm
@Brand X,
It’s still quite early.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Feb, 2019 11:53 pm
U.S.-backed coups/invasions in Latin America:

Guatemala, 1954
Bolivia, 1963
Brazil, 1964
Dominican Republic, 1965
Chile, 1973
Argentina, 1976
El Salvador, 1980s
Nicaragua, 1980s
Grenada, 1983
Panama, 1989
Haiti, 1991
Venezuela, 2002
Haiti, 2004
Honduras, 2009
Venezuela, 2019
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 12:10 am
Elizabeth Warren’s advice for Democrats:

Don’t fall back to the center.



Published August 14, 2017
Quote:
On Saturday morning, as the nation’s attention turned to the white supremacist march in Charlottesville and its violent aftermath, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) used a speech at the progressive Netroots Nation convention to lay down a marker for the Democratic Party’s future.

There was little buzz in the room about the 2020 presidential primaries — shouts of “Run Warren Run” and “Warren 2020″ were short and muted. But Warren, one of the party’s most popular figures, told activists that they could safely ignore any advice about how Democrats could win only through moderation.

Here are four points that we’re probably going to hear more about as the left wages and mostly wins battles inside the party.

No fear of “identity politics.” Near the top of her remarks, Warren ridiculed — by name — a New York Times op-ed in which pollster Mark Penn and disgraced politician Andrew Stein beseeched Democrats to “move to the center and reject the siren calls of the left.” This, according to Warren, not-so-subtly suggested that the party needed to pander to white voters at the expense of non-whites.

“Apparently, the path forward is to go back to locking up non-violent drug offenders and ripping more holes in our economic safety net,” Warren said. Later, she counted off a series of issues where Democrats decisively took the side of black activists. The “system is rigged,” she said…

when the black-white wealth gap triples over the past three decades. When racist voter ID laws and voter suppression tactics sprout like weeds all across the country. When a man too racist to become a judge in the 1980s now runs the Department of Justice. When communities like Flint are living with poisoned water and polluted air. When there’s still no justice for, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Philando Castile and so many more.

Warren’s opposition to Attorney General Jeff Sessions was already famous, especially on the left, but it was striking that she called him a racist — and she did so to applause.

Defining the “bad” donors. Warren, who has repeatedly criticized her party’s 2016 presidential campaign messaging, included one pointed line: “We’re not going back to the days when a Democrat who wanted to run for a seat in Washington first had to grovel on Wall Street.” It was impossible to hear that line and not think of how Hillary Clinton’s campaign, especially after the primary against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), never shook off the stigma of “Wall Street money.”

But Warren, who represents Martha’s Vineyard and other bastions of big Democratic money, defined the bad sort of donations narrowly. That reframed the kind of argument that broke out after Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) met with “Clinton donors.” It would be impossible to fund Democratic campaigns without most of the people who backed Clinton; it is possible, and likely a good frame for 2018 and 2020, to noisily reject financial industry money.

Labor rights as civil rights. Warren suggested that Democrats needed to get behind basically every priority of the labor movement, and make it easier to join a union, a cause that was stymied in 2010 when Democrats lost the supermajority that could have passed the Employee Free Choice (or card check) bill.

“We’re going to fight for fully portable benefits for everyone,” said Warren, “and we’re going to fight to make sure that all work — full-time, part-time, gig — carries basic, pro-rata benefits. We’re going to fight to make it easier for workers to come together to form a union so they can take power into their own hands. And we’re going to turn the minimum wage into a living wage. Fight for $15!”

Single-payer health care as a 2020 standard. The arguments between Democrats about whether every 2018 candidate should back single-payer health care are happening, in part, because single-payer is becoming a de facto Democratic position in 2020. Every Senate Democrat seen as a potential candidate, from Warren to Harris to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), now backs “Medicare for All.” Even Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.), who launched the first 2020 bid this month to — let’s be honest — an avalanche of skepticism, has said he’s “for single-payer evolving from the context of the market we have now.”

Warren used her speech to reiterate her support for expanding Social Security payments, and to make single-payer the party’s default health-care pitch. “It’s not enough just to defend the Affordable Care Act, we’re going to improve it, starting with bringing down the costs of prescription drugs — and leading the fight for Medicare for all,” she said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/14/elizabeth-warrens-advice-for-democrats-dont-fall-back-to-the-center/?utm_term=.552a2ed4bef0
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 12:19 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Haiti, 1991
Venezuela, 2002
Haiti, 2004
Honduras, 2009
Venezuela, 2019
The US had nothing to do with any of these, and even opposed some of them.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 01:08 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The US had nothing to do with any of these, and even opposed some of them.

His forte is revisionist history. I would not expect anything but a severely warped view of history from anyone who believes in fantasies.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 03:50 am
@Brand X,
I don’t think he has the savvy to recover—but as I say that, I think trump doesn’t have ANY savvy, so ****. The trump model sorta bashes intuition.

Schultz seems a bit like trump—an egomaniac asshole, looking for the top gig.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 03:51 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The left sees present day Venezuela and says "I want to do that to America".

No, the "left" doesn't want to turn the USA into a commodity state totally dependent on one extractive industry. Anyone who's told you that this is an objective is very much mistaken. I'm surprised you fell for it.
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 03:54 am
@Olivier5,
They’re railroading her to the nomination.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 04:01 am
@hightor,
(Banging shoes on table, emphatic agreement. This is where we are as a nation)

(Except Kamala has already started climbing down off her support of single-payer. Like Hillary, she says what she thinks her audience of the moment wants to hear. You know— public and private policy...)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 07:17 am
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/428060-brown-medicare-for-all-not-practical?amp&__twitter_impression=true

In which Sherrod Brown states Medicare for All is impractical. What is impractical is Sherrod Brown’s continued campaign.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 08:25 am
@hightor,
Brilliant Krugman piece!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 08:36 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Re: blatham (Post 6785445)
You must not know a single progressive, do you? Kamala isn’t near the progressive universe, and any progressive will gladly tell you that.

Your party is split. Why do you think that happened? Are you THAT out of the loop?

I like that formulation heading up para 2... "Your party is split"

Other than that though, your posting history here over the last 15+ years surely does validate your claims to sincere and consistent progressivism. We've all witnessed it. We trust you.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2019 08:38 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, & Elizabeth Warren

OK. So that's three Dem candidates you are going to slag. We'll keep counting.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 10:46:50