Ok, I have to say I find this quite amusing after all of the crap the left has given the right over gerrymandering districts and trying to steal elections... they are simultaneously:
Trying to remove the electoral college Trying to get illegals the right to vote Trying to get inmates the right to vote Trying to get teenagers the right to vote
And they claim they are doing it all in the name of "fairness"..
So you think American citizens shouldn’t be allowed to vote after serving their sentence?
How MAGA hatter of you.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Actually most states have finally made it legal for former felons to vote once they have completed their sentence.
And I'd like to know who you mean by "the left"?
See, there are whackamole extremists in both parties. By labeling it "the left" you give an impression that one side is all for this. That isn't true. You have extremists of the left that do. But the exception isn't the rule.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Nearly 99% of everything that Warren said would cost trillions of dollars and is not economically viable. I guess you'd be happy paying all that hard earned job money straight to the government right, say 70% of it? The biggest problem is the people who support her, Bernie Sanders, or any of these socialist are too ignorant and actually believe this tripe. Collective socialists, I wouldn't even give these people the time of day, and people who even THINK about voting for them I really wonder.
Let's trust the government to run things. Oh that's a great idea! They run everything so efficiently!
Nearly 99% of everything that Warren said would cost trillions of dollars and is not economically viable. I guess you'd be happy paying all that hard earned job money straight to the government right, say 70% of it? The biggest problem is the people who support her, Bernie Sanders, or any of these socialist are too ignorant and actually believe this tripe. Collective socialists, I wouldn't even give these people the time of day, and people who even THINK about voting for them I really wonder.
Let's trust the government to run things. Oh that's a great idea! They run everything so efficiently!
i know right? rather have the guy who owes millions of dollars in loans, multiple bankruptcies, doesn't pay his contractors, and who is bought off by the russians! thats true efficiency!
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Trump's booming economy has 2020 Dems struggling to find negative spin
Sens. Kamala Harris said, “Yeah, well, I’ve been traveling our country. People are working. They’re working two and three jobs to pay the bills. It’s not working for working people,”.
But as the Washington Post’s fact checker notes, Harris’ much-repeated talking point appears not to be backed up by the data as the number of people working two or more jobs is particularly small and is decreasing.
Only 251,000 workers out of a total 156 million people with jobs had two full-time jobs last month. This is a decline of nearly 100,000 such people compared to last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In general, there are 7.8 million people who have more than one job.
the dems aren't even spinning though. fox news spreading fake narratives, as usual.
your own president can't even stay on message about the economy, which works in the dems favor.
instead, he's still whining about conways husband and starting fights with SNL.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Trump and GOP promised economic growth much better than Obama’s. That’s not what happened
President Donald Trump’s central claim about his economic policies officially crashed into reality on Thursday.
Throughout the 2016 campaign and since, the president and his party have vowed to kick-start tepid Obama-era economic growth. Specifically, they insisted tax cuts and deregulation would return growth to its post-World War II average of 3 percent — a level, candidate Trump said derisively, that President Barack Obama became “the first president in modern history” never to reach in a single year.
New government data on Thursday morning show that Trump, too, has failed to reach the 3 percent promised land, according to one major metric. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis measured 2018 growth at 2.9 percent, matching the peak Obama enjoyed in 2015.
Instead of annual 2018 growth, the White House emphasized a different growth measure comparing growth from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018.
By that measure, the economy grew 3.1 percent. But Obama, too, reached 3 percent growth on a four-quarter basis four different times.
Where Obama failed to enjoy 3 percent annual growth was on the BEA’s official annual number. His 2015 peak was 2.9 percent, like Trump’s for 2018. Thursday’s preliminary 2.9 percent figure could later be revised, although economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics said the most likely direction would be down.
For the rest of the president’s term, economic forecasters agree, that number will decline.
“2018 will be the high-water mark for growth in the Trump administration,” Zandi predicted. He expects the decade-old economic expansion will shrink to 1.1 percent growth in 2020, with a better-than-even chance of recession.
For the 21st century economy, 2.9 percent represents strong performance in any event. Not since 2005, during George W. Bush’s presidency, has America seen a full-year expansion of 3 percent or more. Moreover, 2018 marked the second consecutive year that growth accelerated by six-tenths of a percentage point from 1.6 percent in Obama’s final year in office.
GOP’s hollow campaign pledge
Economically, that falls short of the upgrade Team Trump pledged. Politically, it demonstrates the hollowness of a core GOP campaign theme.
The theme hardly originated with Trump. Announcing his presidential candidacy in 2015, then-frontrunner Jeb Bush blamed Democratic policies for “the slowest economic recovery ever” and identified the solution as tax cuts and deregulation.
“There is not a reason in the world why we cannot grow at a rate of 4 percent of year,” Bush declared.
Obama’s economic advisers cited two big reasons: sluggish worker productivity and shrinking labor supply as baby boomers retire. Those factors, they argued, limited potential growth to a long-term average of 2 percent.
Trump, with characteristic grandiosity, dismissed that argument and outbid Bush. “We think it could be 5 or even 6” percent, he said.
His economic advisers remained more cautious. But they cast sustained growth of 3 percent or more, driven by new, productivity-boosting business investment, as the floor beneath their strategy for making Americans better off and protecting the federal budget.
“The foundation for the plan is 3 percent growth,” budget director Mick Mulvaney told Congress. “In fact, that IS Trumponomics.”
‘Abracadabra,’ Obama
Growth ticked up in 2017 to 2.2 percent, though that rate fell below what the Congressional Budget Office had forecast before Trump’s election. As the president took steps toward deregulation, Republican allies in Congress called tax cuts critical to achieving their 3 percent goal.
The tax cuts passed in December 2017. And when growth surged to 4.2 percent in the second quarter of 2018, the White House declared victory.
“We’re on track to reach the highest annualized growth in 13 years,” the president assured reporters.
“Remember when Obama said you need a magic wand to make that happen?” Donald Trump Jr. told Breitbart. “Well ‘abracadabra,’ Obama. We’re doing it.”
In fact, growth in a single quarter had topped 4.2 percent four different times during the Obama administration. A broad range of analysts had forecast that a deficit-financed tax-cut would stimulate short-term boost beginning in 2018.
Yet even as 3rd quarter growth slowed to 3.4 percent, White House advisers reiterated their confidence. In July, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin called the U.S. “well on the path” for four to five years of sustained 3 percent growth.
In December, top White House economist Kevin Hassett sounded the same note while acknowledging a slowdown in business investment. “We’re definitely going to be at 3 or above 3” for both 2018 and 2019, he told CNBC.
Thursday’s BEA data show otherwise. Growth kept falling in the fourth quarter, to 2.6 percent. The increase in business investment has continued to taper.
Having predicted growth of “substantially over 3 percent,” former National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, has blamed Trump’s trade tariffs for offsetting the boost from the tax cut. But the White House and its allies lacked credible evidence for their growth claim to begin with.
“The 3 percent long-term projection was always a stretch in light of the demographic headwinds,” Harvard’s Greg Mankiw, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers for President Bush, told CNBC.
That doesn’t mean the White House agenda won’t have long-term benefits. But Republican economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush adviser and CBO director, says determining its impact will take years.
“The real question is how much the trend has improved: are we decelerating to 2.5 percent instead of 2.0 percent?” asked Holtz-Eakin. “The test of the Trump administration policies will be their impact on productivity growth, and the data are not yet in.”
Meantime, economists at CBO and the Federal Reserve have cut their forecasts for 2019 growth to 2.3 percent. For the long-term, both project growth below 2 percent.
Trump already amassing huge war chest for 2020 – challengers beware
According to recent FEC data, the Trump campaign has raised over $67 million from 2017 to 2018, with nearly $20 million on hand. Combined with the hauls from two major joint fundraising groups – Trump Victory and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee – the president has raised over $130 million as of the end of 2018, with over $35 million on hand.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
the christian right should definitely watch this video.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I'm still quite undecided. Too many candidates and not enough specifics thus far for me to make a determination at this early juncture. But I do like what he has to say to this point.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
so right now, my two favorites are this guy and Andrew Yang
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I heard my first interview with him about 6 weeks ago. It was an hour-long deep dive on a podcast. Just him and the interviewer. For an entire hour, this dude simply laid down the most coherent, concise, considered platform I'd heard to date. I was like, "Who IS this dude? And why am I just now hearing about him?"
Last time I mentioned him, I stated that I wished Razorthorns would visit, and tell us what it's like to live in the town where he is mayor. Raz either hasn't been around, didn't see my request, or chooses to stay out of the talk. All are cool with me, but it would be kinda cool to get an up-close and personal POV from someone who knew him before all of us.
Mayor Pete: 2 terms chief executive of his home town, Harvard (magna [censored] laude), Oxford (first-class honors degree in philosophy, politics and economics) Rhodes scholar, Naval intelligence officer/Afghanistan theater, speaks 8 different languages, Christian, published author... and still lives in the same neighborhood where he grew up.
Regardless of party affiliation, this is one accomplished, centered, impressive human being. We could place ourselves in worse hands, trust me.
The more you hear him, the more you want. I can't actually say that about too many others.
____________________
I'm hoping that the GOP starts to produce their own version(s) of Mayor Pete. If they can do that, I'll feel a lot better about this country's political future. Fresh new talent on this level is just the medicine for what ails us. A fight between a Mayor Pete and his/her equal counterpart from Team Red is something I could actually get excited about, from a purely non-partisan POV.
Dig into Mayor Pete. Stuff is out there about him.
Researching this guy just now, from an outside perspective I'd say some of his views I agree with but others not all the way. He's smarter than the rest of the democrat candidates!!!
I saw this article from the Daily Dot and started reading it:
Pete Buttigieg hasn’t officially announced he’s running for president yet—but he’s already charging up the polls.
Buttigieg—the Democratic mayor of South Bend, Indiana—has “surged” in popularity in a national poll, earning 4% of voters’ support since announcing his exploratory committee in late January. It’s Buttigieg’s best national poll yet, which is especially impressive since he hasn’t done anything more than announce his committee.
But who is Pete Buttigieg? And more importantly, how do you pronounce his last name?
Who is Pete Buttigieg? Buttigieg—who has been traveling with a sign that says “It’s Boot-edge-edge,” according to the New York Times—is the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana. In true millennial form, he’s selling T-shirts with the clever slogan, too. Buttigieg was originally elected mayor in 2011 at age 29. He was reelected in 2015 and is now closing out his final year of the term.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg has made a point to play up this political experience.
“I’d argue that being a mayor of a city of any size—especially in a strong mayor system like the one we have—means that you have the on-the-ground, day-to-day, executive experience of government at its core,” he told Vox.
Buttigieg is a Democrat who thinks of himself as a progressive, an Afghanistan war veteran, and the first openly gay Dem to run for president. If he were to win the 2020 Democratic primary, he’d be the first openly gay major party candidate. He’d also be the youngest president if he won.
But don’t get too excited—because even Buttigieg recognizes that winning is a “long shot.”
Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 platform It’s worth noting that Buttigieg’s campaign is light on policy details—likely because he still hasn’t officially announced a presidential bid. But based on prior interviews and analysis, here are the basics:
Pete Buttigieg on gun control Buttigieg is a supporter of new gun laws—such as background checks and age restrictions—and is a member of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group, which advocates for gun control legislation at state and federal levels.
As PBS notes, Buttigieg supports universal background checks and opposed allowing guns in schools as well as self-defense gun laws.
In February, Buttigieg promised that in his first 100 days in office, he would pass a bill mandating background checks. He’s also made his distaste for assault rifles clear on Twitter.
I agree with this guy that there needs to be universal background checks. Registered gun shops are already required to do this. I don't know anyone that objects to it. For his stance on "assault rifles" that is a blanket term and him being in war, I'd expect him to know better. He needs to define which guns he's talking about. Either way I don't agree with this. If I want to own an assault rifle for recreation, target shooting, or fun, semi auto, then I believe I have the right.
Pete Buttigieg on foreign policy Buttigieg has called the Trump administration’s attempts to get America out of forever wars “largely good,” and he supports pulling troops out of Afghanistan.
The mayor cited his experience serving as a Navy intelligence officer in Afghanistan for his views on American policy. Although Buttigieg is glad to see the country pulling out of wars, he has also openly criticized President Donald Trump’s Twitter feuds with foreign leaders, as well as the president’s plans to withdraw from Syria.
“To me, the way you ground all of this is you start with core, life-and-death American interests as the threshold for the commitment of force,” Buttigieg told Vox. “But you also vet anything we think we’re going to do that’s in our interests against American values, because so much of the original sin of American foreign policy has to do with moments where we thought it was in our interests to act against our values. In the long run, that’s almost always turned out to be wrong.”
Agreed with this stance 100%. I hate being in stupid useless conflicts. Its an incredible waste of tax dollars and resources and we don't need to play the world's police. Only in extreme circumstances should we get involved. We have enough to worry about at home rather than meddle in other people's business.
Where do 2020 Democratic candidates stand on healthcare? Former Alaska senator launches meme-filled 2020 primary campaign Where do 2020 Democratic candidates stand on weed? Pete Buttigieg on healthcare Buttigieg says he supports a single-payer healthcare system, but wouldn’t want to immediately jump into it.
“Maybe Medicare … is a way we start to get there,” Buttigieg said on C-SPAN. “Everybody should be able to get healthcare. I think everybody agrees on that. I don’t think we have to make it that complicated.”
Throughout his public appearances and media interviews, Buttigieg has remained adamant that healthcare for all is vital.
But as noted by Politico, he has still approached the subject more moderately than potential opponents such as Kamala Harris have in the past, saying a “Medicare for All” system wouldn’t necessarily involve getting rid of private insurance.
“If the framework we’re using is Medicare, a lot of people who have Medicare also have Medicare supplements, Medicare Advantage, something like that,” Buttigieg said. “So if we want to make Medicare available to everybody, whether it’s as a public option to buy in or simply establishing that as how the payer structure works in this country, that’s going to be the center of gravity.”
Personally I think more competitive options and freedom of choice is needed for healthcare. Something does need to be done about insurance companies, inflation in drugs, and they should be forced to disclose ALL prices. I want this to operate like any other product.
Now I do realize that its a bit different because without the certain good someone might die. Its very complex but I think the right balance would be a mix or what we have now but open up the market and make it competitive. Total government run healthcare is not the answer and he's smart enough to know it.
Pete Buttigieg on immigration Buttigieg reportedly supports DACA recipients and wants to see Congress pass a law that would create a pathway for young, undocumented immigrants. The mayor also says American troops guarding the southern border is “a waste of their time,” and is against Trump’s recent slew of deportations.
“The administration says it’s responding to an emergency, but the emergency was created by the administration,” Buttigieg told CBS News. “There’s not a spike in border crossings that’s caused this. What’s caused this is a humanitarian crisis that could be addressed with better policies. It’s certainly not the kind of thing that I signed up for when I signed up to be in the military. And one really embarrassing thing is to see troops having their time wasted by deploying them into a situation that common sense immigration reform would be able to deal with.”
So what is his response of illegal drugs coming across the border? How does he feel about the people killed by illegal immigrants? Just asking. I think there should be a path to citizenship like normal but the process should be quickened.
Very leary about it though as it could create a suction issue on the welfare system. Once coming into the country they need to be productive citizens, get a job, education, or self study, etc. If not, deport them, they are out just like that. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Pete Buttigieg on the Green New Deal Buttigieg has publicly expressed his support for the Green New Deal. He has called climate change a “national security threat,” supports homes in the country becoming “net zero” energy consumers, and favors government-subsidized solar panels.
According to a Medium post, in 2017 Buttigieg was one of 407 mayors to sign a Paris Climate Agreement pact, committing to honor Paris’ climate goals despite President Trump pulling out of the agreement.
Buttigieg has also committed to not accepting money from fossil fuel industries or corporate PACs for his campaign.
I agree that climate change is a real thing and it needs to be addressed but this is not the way to do it. The deal can't be taken seriously at all. The congressional budget office estimated it costs 100 TRILLION dollars and would ruin the nation. Instead of the green new deal, both sides of congress should come together and think of a more reasonable reform for the future.
Pete Buttigieg on marijuana Buttigieg has been pretty quiet regarding his thoughts on marijuana legalization, but according to The Boston Globe, he favors reform.
“The safe, regulated, and legal sale of marijuana is an idea whose time has come for the United States, as evidenced by voters demanding legalization in states across the country,” he said.
Totally agree with this one. Whatever an adult wants to do in their time shouldn't be the governments problem.
Pete Buttigieg on LGBTQ equality Buttigieg—who married his husband, Chasten Glezman, last year—supports an amendment called the Federal Equality Act, which would expand the 1964 Civil Rights Act so that non-discrimination protections would apply to the LGBTQ community, according to On Top Magazine.
He’s also opposed to the Trump administration’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and supports gender confirmation surgery in prison.
Totally agree with this one. Whatever an adult wants to do in their time shouldn't be the governments problem. Also if a person wants to server their country I think they should be able to. Go through the same training as everyone does and so on. If someone has the same determination and wants to protect the countries freedoms just like I do than I would be happy to go to war with them. I've never served but that's how I see it. Plus just because someone might be a little different from yourself doesn't mean they won't be an effective member of the military.
Pete Buttigieg on the Electoral College Buttigieg has expressed support for getting rid of the Electoral College system.
“Absolutely,” he said in an interview on MSNBC. “It’s got to go.”
Would I support getting rid of the Electoral College? Absolutely. It's got to go.
This is where he totally lost me and went off the rails? Is he serious with this? He can't make statements like that and expect to be taken for real. I think he knows this. He's just pandering to the radical base.
Pete Buttigieg on the Supreme Court Buttigieg spoke against an amendment proposed by Republicans to limit the Supreme Court to nine justices. He also “hinted at” supporting a reform that would expand the court instead of shrinking it.
At this time I don't really see a reason to expand the supreme court. I wouldn't be opposed to it because it might offer people with new insights but meh, whatever.
Pete Buttigieg has proven himself to be a charismatic, likable 2020 prospect. But while his popularity has surged, it remains to be seen whether Buttigieg’s policies will stand up against Democratic heavyweights like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
Emily Bloch
Overall this guy seems like the most reasonable candidate the democrat party could put up. However, he probably won't run be because he's too smart or the democrat party is not competent enough to realize that his brand would sell more moderately than those loony tunes such as Harris, Booker, Warren, or Sanders. I think it would be refreshing to have people such as him in the debates.
You did some work on this. I appreciate it. I want to take some time to dig a bit deeper into your remarks before I comment, because I find them worth examining/discussing. It's getting late, and I'd rather read/digest when I'm fresh.
One quick observation: on many issues of substance we are pretty close in POV... and many of them seem to fit under Mayor Pete's umbrella, as well. I'll be a bit more 'on top of it' next time I post.
At the end of the day we need the best candidate we can muster to crush Trump. That's the most important thing to focus on for Dems during the primaries. No fixed primaries, no DNC favoritism, no next man up establishment candidates! Just let the better candidate take the W this time dems.
