ah, forgive me. i live in Surrey in the UK so i think anywhere that’s not here is cool. but mostly i wanted to segue into talking about kshama sawant, who is cool imo
2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates: Do They Have Policies? What Are Their Policies? Let's Find Out!
Amazon is based out of Seattle, and Microsoft is based out of Bellevue, my nearby hometown. This area has been gentrified to hell and back.
Atlanta is slowly becoming San Fran too. We’re getting priced out of affordable apartments, possibly kicking us out past the perimeter in Trump country where our vote doesn’t matter.
Christ, our streets are littered with those scooters now too.
We got Lime Bike instead of scooters, they’re everywhere.
Toronto is getting the scooters and If I didn’t care about things I would promptly be tossing every single one I see in Lake Ontario’s frigid waters.
Hey, folks. Something the mod team like to underline folks to be mindful about, in general, is the potential for people commenting about elections in other countries to come across as patronising or insulting. We’ve had a number of users share concerns about this in the past, so we want to raise it here explicitly so folks can be mindful about it now rather than later.
This concern is for two reasons: firstly, claiming expertise in a topic someone else has a lived experience in that you do not (like the impact of politics in another country) is a ripe area for missteps. Secondly, it can give an impression of the weight of a nation falling onto the shoulders of a few people in front of you, which is likely to enflame conversation or lead to blaming the marginalised for their marginality. We don’t this thread has moved to this level yet, but we can see the potential for this to happen in a few recent comments that have been brought to our attention. We’d like to nip this in the bud & keep this constructive.
An example of what we would mean is worth highlighting from Austin Walker’s end-of-year article:
[…] When prodded to explain why, in an accelerationist turn, he said he was hopeful after Trump’s win in 2016, the philosopher Slavoj Žižek told VICE News that “the inertia of status quo should somehow be broken and open space for a new political reconfiguration.” Fill the playing hall with wild animals.
If I was disgusted by Žižek’s remarks at the time, it was not because I thought that the left shouldn’t respond to Trump’s election by turning it into a catalyzing event. It was because the ease with which he said the words reflected a fundamentally disinterested and safe position.
We don’t feel the comments above reflect something on this level. With that said, it can be easy to make a comment and miss the mark when it isn’t you dealing with a political situation directly. Just something to be mindful about in this thread.
On that note, if you’d like to discuss Canadian politics, we would encourage setting up a new thread to encourage a rounded and informed discussion.
Anyone want to entertain the notion of Stacey Abrams running? She seemed alright.
There’s a Georgia Senate seat with her name on it. Seems like a more important race to win than President in 2020 with control of the Senate in the balance.
The thing Democrats need is a new, deep bench in congress. It is why I like people like AOC, arrived in the House and immediately asked for seat on Ways and Means. She didn’t get it for a number of reasons, least of which it is a hard committee to be on if you haven’t been in congress before, but it showed that she understood how to obtain power in goverment to accomplish things.
I mean, it has to be Beto for me. I am not thrilled about any single one of these possibilities right now, but the fiery support (on a national scale, not just in Texas) for him during the race against Cruz seemed like an eye-opening moment for Democrats who were quick to dismiss AOC’s success as a sort of fluke but now suddenly came to realize there are huge swaths of people desperate for progressive change even in areas where all hope seemed lost.
I don’t love the guy, and as noted his track record is spotty (on top of that, that DUI will continue to haunt him and he’ll be attacked left and right for a lack of experience or whatever) and we just don’t know enough to see if he’s the real deal or not, but he is/acts passionate and fiery, he’s young, he’s governed in an area very familiar with the effects of poor immigration policy (likely one of if not the key issue every candidate will have to address at length at every turn), and most importantly has the name recognition at this point. Most analysts put him and Harris (who I strongly dislike, I implore people to look at her wildly inconsistent criminal justice track-record which is beyond alarming) at the top of the pack right now, even without Beto making an announcement yet.
Side note, I was not ready for just how exhausting this whole thing would already be, so early. I’m trying like many others not to get too down about the whole thing but this list is just so…uninspiring.
Also a Seattlite here and I remember hearing that the recently former CEO of Starbucks retired because he was thinking about running for President or so other government position. It’d be bad. We need less business folks and more people who actually know shit in office, but I’m sure I don’t have to tell anyone here that.
Honestly, I’m not too focused on the Presidential candidates yet. There’s too much local stuff going on here. Hopefully a lot more folks like AOC can get elected into positions where they can put pressure against the forever more right falling Dem establishment.
Here is a thing y’all should know: Tulsi Gabbard actively supports and is backed by the fascist hindu nationalist party (Bharatiya Janata Party in India, which is currently being protested in a general strike by hundreds of millions of people.
" Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”."
I have to say I’m not a huge fan of just saying “sucks”, here in regards to a political candidate as it… doesn’t really help? Like, if I don’t know anything about a candidate that doesn’t really help me understand anything about them
in other news this is wayyyyy too early for me to be thinking about the election and the opposition to Trump will almost certainly be a milquetoast Democrat. I will probably not engage in this thread until, like… next year.
As far as ‘policies’ go, this is a pretty strong line in the sand to determine the likes and the dislikes… (emphasis mine)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will propose a new annual “wealth tax” on Americans with more than $50 million in assets, according to an economist advising her on the plan, as Democratic leaders vie for increasingly aggressive solutions to the nation’s soaring wealth inequality.
Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two left-leaning economists at the University of California, Berkeley, have been advising Warren on a proposal to levy a 2 percent wealth tax on Americans with assets above $50 million, as well as a 3 percent wealth tax on those who have more than $1 billion, according to Saez.
The wealth tax would raise $2.75 trillion over a ten-year period from about 75,000 families, or less than 0.1 percent of U.S. households, Saez said.
[…] Warren’s proposal includes at least three new mechanisms to combat tax evasion, according to a person familiar with the plan. Those are a significant increase in funding for the Internal Revenue Service; a mandatory audit rate requiring a certain number of people who pay the wealth tax to be subject to an audit every year; and a one-time tax penalty for those who have more than $50 million and try to renounce their U.S. citizenship.
I excerpted the last point as I always think it is interesting to think about wealth taxes practically. This kind of one-time tax penalty is the kind of ambitious thinking that would be necessary to make this kind of tax plan workable. I can see some critiques of it, but it’s something that does catch my attention.
One of the coauthors of the piece, Jeff Stein, has a good twitter thread which contextualises it with Warren’s other policy announcements. In a campaign field of Democrats who will label their centrism as radical (see: the general endorsement of Medicare-for-all with little policy detail behind it), Warren seems like she is a realer New Dealer than some of the flock.
Hey everyone Joe Biden was paid money to shill for a Republican politician during their race (which they won) and he…doesn’t seem to get why people are mad about this.
Also Harris decided it was a good idea TO HIRE THE PERSON WHO RAN HILLARY’S TERRIBLE CAMPAIGN
It’s still January 2019. Oh dear god.
I really, really wish Warren hadn’t doubled down on the DNA-test-to-drunk-on-conservatives business because policy-wise she’s probably the only one who gives me any semblance of hope. If they held the primaries right now, she’d probably have my vote.
Purely electorally, I’m wondering if a Warren/Beto or Warren/Castro ticket might actually be able to catch the widest swathe of voters, just because of the potential for swinging Texas.
No, I like how it never ends. Constantly feeling like I’m teetering on the edge of a black hole is what gets me up in the morning.
Warren just went on All In with Chris Hayes and talked about her proposed Wealth Tax. It was a good pitch, easy to follow process and relate-able reasoning. Hayes did great teeing up the conservative criticisms for her to knock down.
Bernie or someone to the left of Bernie is all I’m voting for, and I’m still hesitant on Bernie. It sucks that so much of American politics are filtered through the presidency but my politics are so outside the realm of national policy it would be fruitless for me to spend any of my energy or time even giving positive lip service to all of these milquetoast candidates. I think it might even be counter productive for anyone but Bernie to win, and that’s just a maybe.