Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

I know centrists and media like pushing that narrative. Much like Centrism and incrementalism, it's been shown to be hollow and lacking any meaningful evidence to back the claim.

"Former presidential candidate Jay Inslee, who exited the 2020 race on Wednesday, made waves when he announced a $9 trillion plan to combat climate change, a large portion of which would be leveraged investments from the private sector. Sanders’ plan goes much, much further. It guarantees a $16.3 trillion investment through 2030 to radically reshape American life and address the climate crisis.

The plan itself doesn’t focus on where the money will come from, though the campaign did say it would come in part from new taxes on the rich, raising revenue from the plan itself, reduced social safety net costs, and a few other sources. Instead, it focuses on who gets the money. The plan commits trillions of dollars to grants for low- and middle-income families to do everything from home weatherization to buying a new electric vehicle, and it would create a whole new host of publicly owned energy and internet infrastructure. It also uses language like “we will spend,” “we plan to provide,” and “give.” I’m not going all bUt HoW wIlL wE pAy FoR iT, given that we need a livable planet, but the language and the recipients themselves are the message: This is a goddamn revolution."

Full article

Corporate centrists, having nothing to run on cept' 'Trump Bad!' yet will continue to back the political/economic policies that has driven us to where we are today. No ideas are coming from there. Like the american suburbs themselves, their politics are about alienation and consumption. No culture or ideas come from those places.

Warren wants to put new brakes on the soul harvester. Bernie wants a different ride.

other than, I suppose, facts and polling? What criteria do you propose, my friend? Wishful/magical thinking?

Oh, I see the answer. Add in magical economics.

Too many moving parts to even zoom in on a likely field of possibilities. Has a candidate EVER chosen a competitor in the primaries as a running mate?

Seems almost like a no brainer to pick the number 2 candidate in the primaries as the VP candidate...whose idea was it to let an un-elected candidate appoint the next VP?

A lot of candidates this time around seem to be using the race as an application for the job...like a reality/game show....AMERICA"S GOT POLITICIANS...competing to move on to the next round.

Most likely the next VP candidate will be someone we've never heard of and there will be a collective: "Who?....WHY???"

This time around, Trump Bad is enough to win the election.

Lotta voters aren't sure they can afford a new ride. New brakes on the soul harvester would be nice though, and more in line with the current budget...y'know?
But Bernie is still in the race. Inslee and a few others are not.

I don't see much of a path to him getting the nomination, but it's still early, things can change, and not one single vote has been cast yet. They generally drop out as the money dries up.

Primaries have a really low turnout, mostly old centrists. It's the one real chance the left has to influence the party. Send him money and he'll stay in the race. Swarm the polls and the caucuses like they were a Proud Boys event and yall can put your boy in the drivers seat.

I read a huffpost article today demanding that Warren renounce her claim of Cherokee ancestry.

Elizabeth Warren Has Spent Her Adult Life Repeating A Lie


Of course, that would be a lie. Her DNA results show that she does indeed have some Native American genes. How did they get there, if not for some distant Native American ancestry? She never claimed to be Cherokee, or any tribe. The article author is suffering from political correctness to the extent that she is denying reality.

More and more I can count on HuffPost to be a publication that promotes empty political correctness and the notion that it's okay to be more offended than the person or group supposedly being targeted.

What persons or groups were "targeted" by Liz Warren?
NONE!

She'd grown up hearing an old bit of family folklore, and all the ancestral originators had long since been in the ground, so they could not speak to the authenticity but as with most folklore, it was passed down. Maybe there was a lone native American in the woodpile, maybe there wasn't but it was an old family story, nothing more.

My wife's father was told the exact same thing by his mother the whole time he was growing up. No one can verify it. He certainly had the look of a Cherokee.

But again, Edith (and Karen's father) are both dead and gone for decades now, so nobody can verify whether or not it was just an old bit of baloney or not.

My only take on this is, when the subject came up, Liz should have said that she was "only going to comment on this ONE TIME, that it was an old family story that everyone was told, PERIOD, end of story, thanks for inquiring."

And that is where it should have ended.

When I was a child, my father often told people that I was a fart-headed laffer, but there was no Ancestry.com report to bear it out....

PS: The Cherokee Nation is erasing actual full blood Cherokees off their roster at a rate that is similar to Amazon deforestation, and for one reason only:
Casino money.

So let's forget all notions of Liz Warren's minor goof being damaging to the Cherokees.

Sure, yeah, why not.

It's not as though combating global warming doesn't have broad popular support.

DNC rejects resolution calling for climate change debate

Sanders is ready for that debate. Warrren's probably got a plan.

One wonders who's side Perez and the DNC is on......