Super Tuesday
-
@BShark said in Super Tuesday:
@FarmerJayhawk said in Super Tuesday:
But here’s the deal. We a HUGE amount of attention to the Presidential election (as well we should!) but pay almost zero to the most important elections to Congress. Without looking, can you name the major candidates for Senate in swing states? If voters want a major legislative agenda, work for/donate to/promote… idk… candidates for the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. Their the superior branch of government and can make the changes you want. The President cannot.
And ultimately none of this matters anyway but the point is taken.
Of course it does. The makeup of Congress matters A TON. A D Congress with a Biden Presidency gets more progressive change than Bernie with a R Congress. The RNC is making a massive mistake in not going balls to the wall to protect Gardner, Collins, McSally, et al. A Trump second term is crippled if Sen. Schumer gets to ignore Trump appointments.
-
-
@approxinfinity said in Super Tuesday:
@FarmerJayhawk would you be concerned that taking one of the senators you mentioned as a running mate would just turn the senate one more seat red? And what do you expect the impact of a Biden ticket down ballot to be?
On Sinema, yes. Ducey is a Republican and would appoint a Republican to replace her, but AZ law means there’s a special election in 22 to replace the appointed Senator. The governor of Wisconsin is a Democrat so that wouldn’t matter as far as the partisan breakdown.
I think Biden has much longer coattails than Bernie. He’s gotten a lot of black and suburban voters so far. I think they absolutely vote in the general. We’ve always observed primary voters vote in the general and won’t flip. Bernie has always operated outside the DNC and his machine hasn’t really moved the needle in terms of turnout so far. It’s a recipe for losing some suburban women who don’t like A) Bernie’s record with women and
his insistence we get rid of their health insurance plans. He’s never done well with black voters either. I’m skeptical he’d get 2012 type numbers with black voters in Philly, Detroit, and Milwaukee.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Senate_election_in_Kentucky
Is Amy McGrath the most viable challenger to sent McConnell packing? I am thinking about contributing to that race.
-
@FarmerJayhawk said in Super Tuesday:
@BShark said in Super Tuesday:
@FarmerJayhawk said in Super Tuesday:
But here’s the deal. We a HUGE amount of attention to the Presidential election (as well we should!) but pay almost zero to the most important elections to Congress. Without looking, can you name the major candidates for Senate in swing states? If voters want a major legislative agenda, work for/donate to/promote… idk… candidates for the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. Their the superior branch of government and can make the changes you want. The President cannot.
And ultimately none of this matters anyway but the point is taken.
Of course it does. The makeup of Congress matters A TON. A D Congress with a Biden Presidency gets more progressive change than Bernie with a R Congress. The RNC is making a massive mistake in not going balls to the wall to protect Gardner, Collins, McSally, et al. A Trump second term is crippled if Sen. Schumer gets to ignore Trump appointments.
I mean all of it. The president too. It will all pretty much to according to plan.
-
@approxinfinity said in Super Tuesday:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Senate_election_in_Kentucky
Is Amy McGrath the most viable challenger to sent McConnell packing? I am thinking about contributing to that race.
Don’t. Cocaine Mitch is going to win by about 15 points.
-
@BShark said in Super Tuesday:
@FarmerJayhawk said in Super Tuesday:
@BShark said in Super Tuesday:
@FarmerJayhawk said in Super Tuesday:
But here’s the deal. We a HUGE amount of attention to the Presidential election (as well we should!) but pay almost zero to the most important elections to Congress. Without looking, can you name the major candidates for Senate in swing states? If voters want a major legislative agenda, work for/donate to/promote… idk… candidates for the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. Their the superior branch of government and can make the changes you want. The President cannot.
And ultimately none of this matters anyway but the point is taken.
Of course it does. The makeup of Congress matters A TON. A D Congress with a Biden Presidency gets more progressive change than Bernie with a R Congress. The RNC is making a massive mistake in not going balls to the wall to protect Gardner, Collins, McSally, et al. A Trump second term is crippled if Sen. Schumer gets to ignore Trump appointments.
I mean all of it. The president too. It will all pretty much to according to plan.
Sounds like you and Alex Jones need a podcast
-
@FarmerJayhawk call me jaybate 2.0
-
@BShark said in Super Tuesday:
@FarmerJayhawk call me jaybate 2.0
whispers Halliburton gave me a raise to spread propaganda
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/fightdenial/status/1234964901119922176
Howling, as it were.
-
@BShark said in Super Tuesday:
https://mobile.twitter.com/fightdenial/status/1234964901119922176
Howling, as it were.
Super Tuesday was her Hail Mary. It was over after New Hampshire, but Very Online People plus Debate People convinced them they had a path. Campaigns have a way of convincing you that you can win as long as cash comes through the door. Warren raised about a gazillion after the last debate, but money !=votes.
-
@approxinfinity I have trouble agreeing because I don’t see a single one of them that is competent or not crazy. Bloomberg has a tyrant streak - eg. outlaw big gulps (though I don’t drink much pop myself - and an elitist for sure, but maybe the least crazy or incompetent of the group. So I don’t see any of them showing that great of judgement in who they select.
Anyway, at this point it looks like its down to a Commie and low IQ old dude that has onset dementia. Great choices.
-
@Bwag Biden can delegate effectively. Trump cannot.
-
@approxinfinity Biden looks like he belongs in a retirement home. I wouldn’t trust him in his current mental state to negotiate with a teenager to mow my lawn. I have no ill will toward the guy, but anyone that listens to him for more than 5 minutes can see he has something going on up there. I’m against the two party system and believe them all to be crooks so I will vote for an independent but most the time when I see the stuff Democrat’s are putting on social media. I believe they are incapable of thinking for themselves.
-
@kjayhawks I have a big problem with the Biden nomination as well. But Trump is a threat to our democracy. Biden will at worst be ineffective.
-
@approxinfinity Trump is naturally an idiot so he’s got that working against him. I’m personally pissed that the Democrats wasted billions of social security money trying to get him impeached when anyone with a brain knew the senate would kill it. When they should have finding someone worth a darn to run against him. I really think with the way things are going, there is zero common sense in Washington on either side.
-
@kjayhawks Does it really work that way? Is the funding for an impeachment tied to the budget for social security? I never heard that before. Seems strange as impeachment is more of an enforcement action so, if funds had to deplete any specific area, I would think military would make more sense… Anyway, it seems like the budget should be more fungible than that!
-
@bskeet I’ve read that they took money from social security to fund it. It really doesn’t where they took it from, they blew money that wasn’t theirs and scheme that was never going to work. Both parties do this and drives me nuts.
-
@bskeet said in Super Tuesday:
@kjayhawks Does it really work that way? Is the funding for an impeachment tied to the budget for social security? I never heard that before. Seems strange as impeachment is more of an enforcement action so, if funds had to deplete any specific area, I would think military would make more sense… Anyway, it seems like the budget should be more fungible than that!
No. Only the executive branch can reprogram funds (see the border wall). Congress would need to pass a budget amendment the President needs to sign it to become law. This really isn’t that complicated.
-
Both parties drive me nuts, but I’m still trying to understand this issue of funding. Sorry for my ignorance, but things just don’t seem to add up.
@FarmerJayhawk says only the executive branch can reprogram funds and @kjayhawks says it came from social security, so does that mean it was Trump’s decision to take the money from Social Security to fund the impeachment?
Also-- what does it mean that they (who is they in this case) blew money that wasn’t theirs? The government can only use funds that are derived from taxes, which generated by laws created by the representatives that we have elected into position… So, I don’t see how whatever money they used to fund the impeachment process was improper. Whether or not we want our tax dollars being used in such a way, we’ve given them the power to tax and the power to operate the government…
Anyway, there’s a lot of misinformation out there, so I did a quick search and it appears the source of the story is from a “satirical” site: https://potatriotsunite.com/impeachbill/
Evidently, our wonderful social media has allowed this to proliferate and pollute the populace.
Here are fact-checking sites on the topic: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/impeachment-social-security-hoax-resurfaces-in-video/ https://factcheck.afp.com/top-us-democrat-pelosi-did-not-raid-social-security-fund-impeachment https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/22/blog-posting/satire-fact-check-headline-pelosi-impeachment-cost/
And here’s the government’s explanation: https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
-
There’s a huge constituency around the absolute lie that SS is totally fine but for CONGRESS STEALIN OUR RETIREMENT!! No, boomers just didn’t have enough kids or allow enough immigration to fund it.
There’s also a misconception about who pays for whose benefits. When you pay in, the government doesn’t put your money in a little box then mail it back to you at 65. Current taxes pay for current benefits. So surprise! You’re paying for boomers to retire even though there are only about 2.5 workers paying for each beneficiary instead of something like 17 50 years ago.
The system is broken not because people stole their money, it’s because fertility and immigration cratered post-boomers.
-
Correct Farmer.
Hear me out on this though, billionaires could be taxed for it instead of being able to dodge everything.
Congress money is small potatoes.
-
@FarmerJayhawk should we retire as early as possible then? I think they raised the income u can make while getting Ss.
-
@BShark said in Super Tuesday:
Correct Farmer.
Hear me out on this though, billionaires could be taxed for it instead of being able to dodge everything.
Congress money is small potatoes.
And still you’d be nowhere near solvent since we’re only halfway through the boomers retiring, fertility and immigration is still falling, and people are living longer. There just isn’t that much revenue available in the billionaire class. Doesn’t really matter how you tax billionaires, if there’s one worker per retiree the math just doesn’t work.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 said in Super Tuesday:
@FarmerJayhawk should we retire as early as possible then? I think they raised the income u can make while getting Ss.
Good question! Short answer is I have no idea. Depends on each person’s situation.
-
@FarmerJayhawk I meant before it’s cut!
-
Just to drive this point home, voters WAY overestimate the amount of money made by millionaires+ as a fraction of the total economy.
If you want to move to a Scandinavian-style welfare state like Bernie, you need to tax the middle class much more heavily. They tried a wealth tax 50 years ago and decided it was totally unworkable. Plus, if you follow the Sanders line that “billionaires should not exist,” Scandinavia has more per capita than the U.S. They follow the model of high consumption taxation, low investment taxation, the opposite of the Sanders/Warren plan. Devil is always in the details.
@Crimsonorblue22 the trust fund won’t be depleted until 2035, which will be a 20% reduction in benefits assuming no changes to demographics or the funding stream. By 2095, revenue will cover 75% of benefits. The decline will slow as the boomers pass away. We saved it once in the 80’s, we could do it again.
-
@bskeet I read several time that the government has taken money from social security. That obviously doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true. What I mean by spending money that ain’t theirs is the fact that it isn’t lol. They have a tax for just about every thing, that is the American populations money that’s supposed to be used to help the said American citizens. I’d recommend googling what some of our tax money is spent on. 200 million was spent a few years to see if monkeys were more sexually active while on cocaine. Imagine you and you wife going over your budget and deciding to spend much more than you make on silly stuff like that. Then see if how it impacts your household. There is no consequence for their actions, no pay grade based on their performance. They’ll still have their mansions and benzs to go home to. If you budget like that, you’ll be on streets.
