Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by NilesIrish, Mar 4, 2019.
1.5 trillion??? That number sounds familiar
Here to announce my first small donation to a candidate.
Drum roll please ...................
I guess Pete is 3rd for me
That’s where I am too. After that there’s not enough distinguishing the rest of them as of yet.
Warren is younger and a woman. Being that her and Bernie are pretty similar policy wise, it is an easy call for me to prefer Warren there
I D E N T I T Y P O L I T I C S
this is gonna be problematic for bernie
My personal "purity test" is going to be for the candidate that will support abolishing the filibuster and adding DC and Puerto Rico as states.
That is the only way any Democratic President is going to be able to achieve any of the policy goals I support.
Two things about the filibuster
1) dems might need even get a simple majority in the senate
2) even if the president pressures the dem leader it's still up to the dem leader to do it and they could say no
I prefer the nominee to be pro-abolishing it but I understand why not all of them come out and talk about it
I get why they won't say they support it now, but I don't see how anything gets done regardless of which party is in power except through reconciliation given the politics and Senate map.
i'm sure this means we will be analyzing the demographics of every candidate's high school gym speeches going forward
not everyone's but it is no secret he got shit on in 2016 in that demographic and it is something he absolutely needs to fix if he wants to win the democratic primary
If only the Democratic Party would adopt my preferred policy of letting me alone pick the nominee then it would be Pete.
Alas, they aren't letting me do that yet.
That is hilarious "transnational farmers markets" elicited an actual lol.
Too bad he's gonna be fighting Biden for that demo. There's a reason the latest Emerson poll of the general election in SC has Biden trailing Trump by 4 points while all other major candidates are 8-12 back in the state.
Biden will be done when Obama backs another candidate
I don't think this is going to end well for him. Compare this to the others answers.
Beto stealing Pete's SCOTUS plan
I've said it before, Beto is biting Pete's stuff and just saying it louder and less eloquently.
The ability for politicians (of both parties) to just talk at length without actually saying anything is truly amazing.
Decriminalize one of, if not the most addictive drugs out there? And what happens if I haven’t gotten a refill yet and have 5 days left?
That seems like an odd policy stance. I feel like a better one would be more of a “what’s an alternative to opiates?” Bc if marijuana can numb the pain and take away the addiction to opiates that’s a much better solution
I know your like Pete but this is such a weird accusation
Decriminalization isn't legalization. Putting addicts in prison isn't helpful. He also supports mj legalization. Hth
But the thing I think I like most about Yang is that most of his positions seem to be backed by statistics. He's done his research and backs it up with actual case studies of where it's worked. So facts are neat, is all.
This is true. I work in a court where people on meth and heroin get locked up every day.
Still, the addiction problem is so immense I am not really sure what can and should be done to help people. I am not saying we shouldn't, I just have no idea what actually will help the masses of people suffering addiction
It's not direct, I think he is forming his policy and grabbing what plays well. I don't blame him. It's what you should do, but it does seem like a lot of it has come from Pete.
Yang links the Portugal case stud, which seems to point in the right direction. Start there and then legalize marijuana nationally and give people a little money through UBI (because precursors to drug addiction are often economic). It won't fix it but it will very likely help and will also reduce spending in (and our reliance on, and not to mention, our social justice issues related to) the criminal justice system.
I don't know who wins but Pete and Yang being in this is a great thing. Big fan of both thus far.
This is where I am. You all know I am a Pete fanboy, but Yang is growing on me after initial dismissal. Pete/Yang is working it's way to the top of my leader board.
Fuck that idea, fuck bipartisanship, fuck these idiot Dems who keep wanting to appease people who would gladly see them rounded up.
That makes more sense.
My bigger issue though is using opiates at all bc there was a study showing how the dosing was off as most pills are actually more potent than stated which can cause more addictions. So at some point that conversation has to shift away using opiates at all or opiates that are more regulated.
Literally no one is not seeking help for opiate addiction because of fear for legal repercussions. Fucking what?
You know what's going to happen if you walk into a rehab facility for opiate addiction? Nothing.
You know what's going to happen if you walk into your drug dealer's trap house to buy fentanyl?
So what would you propose? Stack the court and then wait for a republican to stack it again and keep going round and round?
Stacking the court does concern me. That sets a dangerous precedent.
Exactly. This is a fix that would end the fucking madness over who does what when some geriatric judge dies. This isn’t bipartisanship, it’s putting an end to the Republican ability to wage war like they have so successfully (and will continue to do given the likelihood that the Senate keeps getting redder.
I think you’re missing the bigger picture with respect to the criminal part. Rehab may not be that helpful. But it’s certainly better than putting people in prison for nonviolent drug offenses.
I think if Pete can get into the debates and get a fair shot he can get into the top five or so then anything can happen.
That's not what he said at all though. He said that people aren't seeking help because of fear of legal issues. Almost verbatim.
You picked out one part of a tweet when he made a bigger picture argument wrt decriminalization and, subsequently, linked an actual instance where it helps.
I'm not sold on Yang. I think he's on to something and am happy he's raising the discussion on ubi, but I do question some of the ideas and connections he makes. I.E. Connecting ubi with lower addiction rates is something that I'd like to see more info on because, iirc, the only state with ubi is also a state with one of the highest rates of addiction (Alaska). Obviously there are other variables and factors to consider in that which is why I'd like to see more about the correlation and how the various factors interact.
Also, I'm wondering about his proposal that you get dollar for dollar less in ubi if you already receive any form of govt assistance. I understand the logic, but seems a bit strange given who you hope to help.
I didn't see that second tweet until just now. I agree with decriminalization, but that first tweet was erroneous.
If I'm understanding his plan correctly, he basically says you get 12k a year under UBI. If you get more than that currently you can opt in to keep that. If you don't, you can get the 12k. UBI would be an opt-in system under his plans. And Alaska isn't a good case study for addiction and depression wrt UBI, for obvious reasons.
His plan for UBI is softening the blow of impending job loss due to automation (truckers and customer service jobs being the most pressing concerns). It's not necessarily intended to change the assistance for those already on some form of permanent government assistance. It's to help those who will continue to be displaced through automation (and have been previously in the manufacturing sector).