Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[Zonkerbl]

Fair enough. Do you tear down the other progressive candidate at the same time?

Is he? I haven't noticed. Oh you mean the tweet. I mean what I really want to have happen is for Bernie supporters to feel like their candidate got a fair shake and just lost a fair battle in the arena of ideas. That means he needs to be perceived as having delivered a suplex or two. If Warren can't survive being called a capitalist establishmentarian she shouldn't be in the race, because Trump is going to say much worse stuff. But if he keeps hanging around long after he's mathematically eliminated, then it's a problem.

I don't think Bernie supporters will EVER feel they have had a fair shake unless then win. Otherwise it is a conspiracy with Bernie taking down the lead candidate again.

Well that's how all stans feel. The only difference between Bernie and other candidates is the Russian propaganda machine targeted Bernies followers to whip them into a frenzy of psychotic standom. I don't think that means we have to start bending the rules to make sure he goes away, it means we have to be more proactive in fighting off foreign meddling.

[Pointgod]

God damn Bernie bros are getting desperate. How the hell is Elizabeth Warren establishment? Bernie voters are going to stay home again if he’s not on the ticket aren’t they?

It's worth noting that societal fragmentation is a part of the product with social media. Bernie says some stuff I agree with and other stuff I don't. His supporters are passionate and generally have a larger sense of good ideas, at the very least. Bernie and his supporters are also the best example within the Democratic party of fragmented society, though.

I suspect a lot of them will still come out to vote regardless of the candidate. There are going to be people who stay at home from amongst all the camps - particularly supporters of fringe candidates who are there just to watch the world burn and hope to tear things down. I just expect Bernie's supporters are going to stick with him until the bitter end which has a predictable outcome. There is a very real possibility they wind up frustrated that Biden is the candidate when they actively take steps to increase the chances of that happening by casting all other options as relatively equally bad and therefore it's Bernie until the end. Biden almost assuredly inspires the fewest people to come out and vote. It's possible he gets a VP candidate who does that for him but he's drawing from Democratic bases that are going to vote regardless. I get the impression that most of his supporters are largely just thinking "good enough." It's a throwback campaign.



I suppose Eisenhower did win his second term...

Passion is great but what they’ve done is create the same narrative that was used to discourage Hillary Clinton. There’s little day light between Warren and Sanders policy wise which makes it insane that they’d call her the establishment candidate. These narratives stick past the primary and will just be used by Republicans, Trump and Russia to lie about Warren. Considering that the actual establishment is wary of Warren, if she doesn’t get support from the left then this could be a repeat of 2016 all over again. Argue on policy but blatant character assassination is poor form. And don’t even get me started on their response if Biden gets the nomination.

[gtn130]

The GND exists for politicians like AOC to signal their values and to put a stake in the ground. Lots of Bernie's positions are Overton Window movers and are not finalized legislation.

Scrutinizing policy details for things that are functionally little more than marketing collateral is an incredible waste of time and shows a complete lack of understanding for why these things exist. Ultimately it's an exercise in bad faith to sit here and castigate the fine print of a fictional bill that will change 1000000x over between now and when it's actually voted on by a majority that supports it.

Fascinating. Every proposal can therefore be justified the same way. I guess that is how those that support Trump do it too - MAGA (complete fiction also).

Sorry, I don't buy it. The proposals and proposal details matter. Unless we are just running on how we feel about the candidate. In that case it just comes down to "electability". In that case - no whining when Biden becomes the candidate.

This isn't a justification for any proposal - it's voting for a candidate based on their values and believing they'll fight for the things you believe in. Trump supporters are correct in voting for Trump - he's owning the libs and they're very happy. Many of them will die because insulin is too expensive or because Medicare was cut, but they're happy because the libs have been owned. They voted correctly!

I don't care at all if M4A is ultimately what's passed by a Bernie administration or if it's something similar but reaches the same goals. Whoever takes office is not writing the bills. Their campaign staff will play a very small role *at most* in any legislation that ultimately gets passed when they're in office.

You're putting the cart before the horse by demanding perfectly executable, vetted, groomed and passable legislation by people running for office. It's not a realistic expectation and it's absurdly resource-intensive to nail down every last policy detail to please like seven people in the entire world who will even read it. Politicians run their campaigns based on a set of values that they want to communicate, the policies they talk about are tools for doing that. If you don't like those policies, you'd be better off communicating how those things can be improved rather than roundly denouncing a candidate with whom you supposedly have a number of shared values.

[Pointgod]

Is he? I haven't noticed. Oh you mean the tweet. I mean what I really want to have happen is for Bernie supporters to feel like their candidate got a fair shake and just lost a fair battle in the arena of ideas. That means he needs to be perceived as having delivered a suplex or two. If Warren can't survive being called a capitalist establishmentarian she shouldn't be in the race, because Trump is going to say much worse stuff. But if he keeps hanging around long after he's mathematically eliminated, then it's a problem.

I don't think Bernie supporters will EVER feel they have had a fair shake unless then win. Otherwise it is a conspiracy with Bernie taking down the lead candidate again.

Well that's how all stans feel. The only difference between Bernie and other candidates is the Russian propaganda machine targeted Bernies followers to whip them into a frenzy of psychotic standom. I don't think that means we have to start bending the rules to make sure he goes away, it means we have to be more proactive in fighting off foreign meddling.

Did Hillary Stans claim the primary was rigged when she lost to Obama in 08? It seems to be the case with Bernie that any loss is the fault of anyone EXCEPT Bernie. The DNC expanded the Primary candidacy to a clown car of 20 people, they added more debates, super delegates matter less etc. Everything to appease Bernie supporters yet here we are.

[dckingsfan]

The GND exists for politicians like AOC to signal their values and to put a stake in the ground. Lots of Bernie's positions are Overton Window movers and are not finalized legislation.

Scrutinizing policy details for things that are functionally little more than marketing collateral is an incredible waste of time and shows a complete lack of understanding for why these things exist. Ultimately it's an exercise in bad faith to sit here and castigate the fine print of a fictional bill that will change 1000000x over between now and when it's actually voted on by a majority that supports it.

Fascinating. Every proposal can therefore be justified the same way. I guess that is how those that support Trump do it too - MAGA (complete fiction also).

Sorry, I don't buy it. The proposals and proposal details matter. Unless we are just running on how we feel about the candidate. In that case it just comes down to "electability". In that case - no whining when Biden becomes the candidate.

This isn't a justification for any proposal - it's voting for a candidate based on their values and believing they'll fight for the things you believe in. Trump supporters are correct in voting for Trump - he's owning the libs and they're very happy. Many of them will die because insulin is too expensive or because Medicare was cut, but they're happy because the libs have been owned. They voted correctly!

I don't care at all if M4A is ultimately what's passed by a Bernie administration or if it's something similar but reaches the same goals. Whoever takes office is not writing the bills. Their campaign staff will play a very small role *at most* in any legislation that ultimately gets passed when they're in office.

You're putting the cart before the horse by demanding perfectly executable, vetted, groomed and passable legislation by people running for office. It's not a realistic expectation and it's absurdly resource-intensive to nail down every last policy detail to please like seven people in the entire world who will even read it. Politicians run their campaigns based on a set of values that they want to communicate, the policies they talk about are tools for doing that. If you don't like those policies, you'd be better off communicating how those things can be improved rather than roundly denouncing a candidate with whom you supposedly have a number of shared values.

Because he said - MAGA. And that is as deep as they went - they were intentionally ignorant.

I guess you are saying the Ds need to be the same? Just say M4A & GND and they should be good.

Fortunately, D's don't seem to be as intentionally ignorant. Polls show that they support M4A until you take away all private insurance - then not so much. They support the GND until they actually read it.

Now - if you are saying we should vote for the D regardless - totally with you. I would vote for a cinderblock with a D stamped on it before I vote for Trump.

But if you are saying to hop on the train with Bernie's version of the GND and M4A during this election period - well, I hope you are just kidding.

And don't forget that with each of our past presidents - they had campaign platforms they pushed through that were very close to their campaign pledges (well, I go back to Carter - so I might have to skip Obama who got undermined).

[Kanyewest]

I don't think Bernie supporters will EVER feel they have had a fair shake unless then win. Otherwise it is a conspiracy with Bernie taking down the lead candidate again.

Well that's how all stans feel. The only difference between Bernie and other candidates is the Russian propaganda machine targeted Bernies followers to whip them into a frenzy of psychotic standom. I don't think that means we have to start bending the rules to make sure he goes away, it means we have to be more proactive in fighting off foreign meddling.

Did Hillary Stans claim the primary was rigged when she lost to Obama in 08? It seems to be the case with Bernie that any loss is the fault of anyone EXCEPT Bernie. The DNC expanded the Primary candidacy to a clown car of 20 people, they added more debates, super delegates matter less etc. Everything to appease Bernie supporters yet here we are.

Yeah Bernie is down 11 points in the realclearpolitic average. Although in 2015 around this same time in September he was down 20+ points. He was also down 20+ points when Biden announced.

In some ways, this time could be more difficult for Bernie. Especially since he wanted Warren to run in 2015(https://time.com/3906635/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren/). A lot of the voters are aligned on the same interests, it isn't like she is Hillary 2.0 but more so a female progressive.

If Sanders/Warren fall to a distant 3rd, that would probably push one of them out of the race which would greatly benefit another candidate. Although it is still a big question if that is going to happen, especially for a Sanders campaign that overcame polls that showed him losing by Michigan by over 30 points.

[doclinkin]

Biden went from +7 to Warren to +6 from the previous WSJ/NBC poll- although both extend their leads on Sanders even though Sanders is more popular (from 13 to 14)

Although there are other polls which show Sanders ahead of Warren like this one https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2019/Reuters_Dem_2020_Sept_11.pdf

And this one
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

Yep, in context this is just one poll and the most recent. And even looking at all the polls I don't think we know what is happening (and won't until after the first few primaries). The think that stands out to me is that Warren has probably taken the mantle from Sanders of the progressive candidate and Buttigieg has probably taken the 4th position.

Biden's support comes from the core of the Dem base - African American voters. My guess is they are basically supporting Biden because of his close relationship with Obama and name recognition, not because of any particularly progressive policies. Warren has the redneck former union member in Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania vote sewn up (well, she's splitting some of those votes with Sanders), so if she wins the nomination she should be able to beat Trump fairly easily. But she has to win the nomination first, and to do that she has to convince black voters to support her over Biden. Will be interesting to see how she addresses that puzzle.

VP Cory Booker as next in line for the 70- something President Warren. Zoe Saldana as the most gorgeous potential 1st lady we've ever seen. Boom, done.

[Rich Rane]

Yep, in context this is just one poll and the most recent. And even looking at all the polls I don't think we know what is happening (and won't until after the first few primaries). The think that stands out to me is that Warren has probably taken the mantle from Sanders of the progressive candidate and Buttigieg has probably taken the 4th position.

Biden's support comes from the core of the Dem base - African American voters. My guess is they are basically supporting Biden because of his close relationship with Obama and name recognition, not because of any particularly progressive policies. Warren has the redneck former union member in Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania vote sewn up (well, she's splitting some of those votes with Sanders), so if she wins the nomination she should be able to beat Trump fairly easily. But she has to win the nomination first, and to do that she has to convince black voters to support her over Biden. Will be interesting to see how she addresses that puzzle.

VP Cory Booker as next in line for the 70- something President Warren. Zoe Saldana as the most gorgeous potential 1st lady we've ever seen. Boom, done.

He's actually going out with Rosario Dawson. Point still stands though.

[gtn130]

Because he said - MAGA. And that is as deep as they went - they were intentionally ignorant.

I guess you are saying the Ds need to be the same? Just say M4A & GND and they should be good.

No, I'm very clearly saying voters vote for the candidate that represents their values and will fight for the things they want. As it turns out, the vast, vast majority of Trump supporters are very happy with Trump merely owning the libs and doing empty symbolic gestures. They don't regret their vote. They want a wall constructed to metaphorically tell brown people to **** off. Trump is working on it.

That absolutely does not mean that liberals / people on the left are going to be just as happy with symbolic gestures. I said quite explicitly that Bernie supporters are fighting for policy outcomes.

Fortunately, D's don't seem to be as intentionally ignorant. Polls show that they support M4A until you take away all private insurance - then not so much. They support the GND until they actually read it.

Except Bernie's plan only calls for killing duplicative private health coverage and still allows for supplemental coverage. The people who think they'd pay more for insurance or their coverage would get worse are actually the ones who are quite ignorant. To be clear: they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and their opinions are predicated on a complete dearth of information. Again, these folks are actually extremely ignorant - they are not smart.

And don't forget that with each of our past presidents - they had campaign platforms they pushed through that were very close to their campaign pledges (well, I go back to Carter - so I might have to skip Obama who got undermined).

I mean this is just laughable. The political environment pre-Obama is not even worth discussing. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything going on today. It's not comparable.

[dckingsfan]

Spoiler:

Because he said - MAGA. And that is as deep as they went - they were intentionally ignorant.

I guess you are saying the Ds need to be the same? Just say M4A & GND and they should be good.

No, I'm very clearly saying voters vote for the candidate that represents their values and will fight for the things they want. As it turns out, the vast, vast majority of Trump supporters are very happy with Trump merely owning the libs and doing empty symbolic gestures. They don't regret their vote. They want a wall constructed to metaphorically tell brown people to **** off. Trump is working on it.

That absolutely does not mean that liberals / people on the left are going to be just as happy with symbolic gestures. I said quite explicitly that Bernie supporters are fighting for policy outcomes.

Fortunately, D's don't seem to be as intentionally ignorant. Polls show that they support M4A until you take away all private insurance - then not so much. They support the GND until they actually read it.

Except Bernie's plan only calls for killing duplicative private health coverage and still allows for supplemental coverage. The people who think they'd pay more for insurance or their coverage would get worse are actually the ones who are quite ignorant. To be clear: they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and their opinions are predicated on a complete dearth of information. Again, these folks are actually extremely ignorant - they are not smart.

And don't forget that with each of our past presidents - they had campaign platforms they pushed through that were very close to their campaign pledges (well, I go back to Carter - so I might have to skip Obama who got undermined).

I mean this is just laughable. The political environment pre-Obama is not even worth discussing. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything going on today. It's not comparable.

So policy and policy outcomes make a difference. Bernie supporters are backing bad policies that will have bad policy outcomes - like the GND. Not sure what we are arguing about here.

BTW, killing duplicative private health coverage is in fact the same thing. If the government offers it - private insurance can't. If government offers it there can be no supplemental insurance to that insurance. And don't get me started on the cost drivers - in time Bernie's plan will be no less expensive than what we have today - his plan doesn't take on just a few of the cost drivers - again, not a great plan.

And yes, history does have a way of repeating itself as much as we want to think otherwise.

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Hmmmm

[FAH1223]

LMAO

Watch on YouTube

The #YangGang are creative. The Naruto style intro has got me weak.

He’s winning the meme primary with Bernie and Marianne Williamson behind.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Zonkerbl]

Fascinating. Every proposal can therefore be justified the same way. I guess that is how those that support Trump do it too - MAGA (complete fiction also).

Sorry, I don't buy it. The proposals and proposal details matter. Unless we are just running on how we feel about the candidate. In that case it just comes down to "electability". In that case - no whining when Biden becomes the candidate.

This isn't a justification for any proposal - it's voting for a candidate based on their values and believing they'll fight for the things you believe in. Trump supporters are correct in voting for Trump - he's owning the libs and they're very happy. Many of them will die because insulin is too expensive or because Medicare was cut, but they're happy because the libs have been owned. They voted correctly!

I don't care at all if M4A is ultimately what's passed by a Bernie administration or if it's something similar but reaches the same goals. Whoever takes office is not writing the bills. Their campaign staff will play a very small role *at most* in any legislation that ultimately gets passed when they're in office.

You're putting the cart before the horse by demanding perfectly executable, vetted, groomed and passable legislation by people running for office. It's not a realistic expectation and it's absurdly resource-intensive to nail down every last policy detail to please like seven people in the entire world who will even read it. Politicians run their campaigns based on a set of values that they want to communicate, the policies they talk about are tools for doing that. If you don't like those policies, you'd be better off communicating how those things can be improved rather than roundly denouncing a candidate with whom you supposedly have a number of shared values.

Because he said - MAGA. And that is as deep as they went - they were intentionally ignorant.

I guess you are saying the Ds need to be the same? Just say M4A & GND and they should be good.

Fortunately, D's don't seem to be as intentionally ignorant. Polls show that they support M4A until you take away all private insurance - then not so much. They support the GND until they actually read it.

Now - if you are saying we should vote for the D regardless - totally with you. I would vote for a cinderblock with a D stamped on it before I vote for Trump.

But if you are saying to hop on the train with Bernie's version of the GND and M4A during this election period - well, I hope you are just kidding.

And don't forget that with each of our past presidents - they had campaign platforms they pushed through that were very close to their campaign pledges (well, I go back to Carter - so I might have to skip Obama who got undermined).

I'm not going to let you get away with "Dems don't support the gnd after they read it." You claim not to be under the influence of right wing propaganda and then you spout out made up stuff like this. If you're not under the influence of the fox anti-truth machine then act like it. You're not a Dem and you don't speak for them.

[dobrojim]

Yep, in context this is just one poll and the most recent. And even looking at all the polls I don't think we know what is happening (and won't until after the first few primaries). The think that stands out to me is that Warren has probably taken the mantle from Sanders of the progressive candidate and Buttigieg has probably taken the 4th position.

Biden's support comes from the core of the Dem base - African American voters. My guess is they are basically supporting Biden because of his close relationship with Obama and name recognition, not because of any particularly progressive policies. Warren has the redneck former union member in Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania vote sewn up (well, she's splitting some of those votes with Sanders), so if she wins the nomination she should be able to beat Trump fairly easily. But she has to win the nomination first, and to do that she has to convince black voters to support her over Biden. Will be interesting to see how she addresses that puzzle.

VP Cory Booker as next in line for the 70- something President Warren. Zoe Saldana as the most gorgeous potential 1st lady we've ever seen. Boom, done.

I like Booker well enough but I really like Stacy Abrams.

[dobrojim]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Exceedingly disturbing to rational people. Trump supporters will
develop some rationalization to shrug this off, call it fake or whatever
it takes. Meanwhile, Congress is likely to be stonewalled, despite black letter
law, in getting to the bottom of this.

If we had more rational people paying attention, the mere fact of
an administration with so many unapproved acting heads of depts
would be a scandal by itself.

[I_Like_Dirt]

So policy and policy outcomes make a difference. Bernie supporters are backing bad policies that will have bad policy outcomes - like the GND. Not sure what we are arguing about here.

BTW, killing duplicative private health coverage is in fact the same thing. If the government offers it - private insurance can't. If government offers it there can be no supplemental insurance to that insurance. And don't get me started on the cost drivers - in time Bernie's plan will be no less expensive than what we have today - his plan doesn't take on just a few of the cost drivers - again, not a great plan.

And yes, history does have a way of repeating itself as much as we want to think otherwise.

I'm not a fan of a lot of Bernie's policies and feel he's one of the weaker candidates. The issue I have is that he's setting an extremely low bar and a lot of candidates aren't even meeting that. Is it really better to have no policies at all than to have a bad policy with your heart in the right place? I'm not so sure that's true. No policies at all are a great way of avoiding criticism, though. That's where I feel Bernie does deserve credit - he at least owns what he believes and comes up with solutions he wants to attempt. That's as far as the credit goes but it's also not something I'll dismiss entirely even if I won't get behind those particular bad ideas.

Warren leads the fight against him in terms of actually coming up with solutions as far as I can tell. And while I don't like all of her policies either, I do like some of them and she's created a rather sizable gap on Bernie in terms of policies that might stand a hope in hell of making a positive difference. I feel it's a bit disingenuous of a shield and not necessarily the main reason but you'll get a lot of Bernie supporters critical of Warren for not being 100% committed to immediate M4A. Sure, it's because she appears to be rational about the actual political potential for such a thing to come to pass and more focused on other concerns first as a gradual lead-in but that's lost in the equation as it shifts his supporters towards that single issue and ignoring the nuance involved. Warren isn't perfect, either, but she's in another galaxy from Bernie in that sense. Yang has been a touch superficial in some respects but also hasn't been shy on his ideas.

It's the centrists, though, that have a particularly difficult time putting out actual policies. And this is where the arguments tend to fall apart a bit. At heart, a lot of centrists would prefer to allow economics to dictate things as they have in the past. It's clear now that a lot of the calculations involved in that kind of thing are actually way more expensive than people realized, though. The costs that environmental issues pose today are absolutely massive and are the result of economic gains from past decades that pale in comparison to what these costs are actually going to wind up being. We can't foresee the costs of failing to act precisely which is what makes this so hard but the idea that scientists might be overestimating things is a big problem because the reality is that it seems more likely that they're actually underestimating things. This is a position where the costs are going to be absolutely massive no matter how a person wants to look at it and anyone who is playing the vague policy game to avoid having financials attached to their plans, or who come out with plans with costs that seem achievable are candidates who are assuredly being disingenuous in terms of where the actual costs are going. Though again, that's where I wind up even more frustrated with Bernie's supporters because they really should just hand Warren the nomination already.

[dckingsfan]

This isn't a justification for any proposal - it's voting for a candidate based on their values and believing they'll fight for the things you believe in. Trump supporters are correct in voting for Trump - he's owning the libs and they're very happy. Many of them will die because insulin is too expensive or because Medicare was cut, but they're happy because the libs have been owned. They voted correctly!

I don't care at all if M4A is ultimately what's passed by a Bernie administration or if it's something similar but reaches the same goals. Whoever takes office is not writing the bills. Their campaign staff will play a very small role *at most* in any legislation that ultimately gets passed when they're in office.

You're putting the cart before the horse by demanding perfectly executable, vetted, groomed and passable legislation by people running for office. It's not a realistic expectation and it's absurdly resource-intensive to nail down every last policy detail to please like seven people in the entire world who will even read it. Politicians run their campaigns based on a set of values that they want to communicate, the policies they talk about are tools for doing that. If you don't like those policies, you'd be better off communicating how those things can be improved rather than roundly denouncing a candidate with whom you supposedly have a number of shared values.

Because he said - MAGA. And that is as deep as they went - they were intentionally ignorant.

I guess you are saying the Ds need to be the same? Just say M4A & GND and they should be good.

Fortunately, D's don't seem to be as intentionally ignorant. Polls show that they support M4A until you take away all private insurance - then not so much. They support the GND until they actually read it.

Now - if you are saying we should vote for the D regardless - totally with you. I would vote for a cinderblock with a D stamped on it before I vote for Trump.

But if you are saying to hop on the train with Bernie's version of the GND and M4A during this election period - well, I hope you are just kidding.

And don't forget that with each of our past presidents - they had campaign platforms they pushed through that were very close to their campaign pledges (well, I go back to Carter - so I might have to skip Obama who got undermined).

I'm not going to let you get away with "Dems don't support the gnd after they read it." You claim not to be under the influence of right wing propaganda and then you spout out made up stuff like this. If you're not under the influence of the fox anti-truth machine then act like it. You're not a Dem and you don't speak for them.

Read the polls on both accounts... I'll assume you agree on the rest.

[dckingsfan]

...The costs that environmental issues pose today are absolutely massive and are the result of economic gains from past decades that pale in comparison to what these costs are actually going to wind up being. We can't foresee the costs of failing to act precisely which is what makes this so hard but the idea that scientists might be overestimating things is a big problem because the reality is that it seems more likely that they're actually underestimating things. This is a position where the costs are going to be absolutely massive no matter how a person wants to look at it and anyone who is playing the vague policy game to avoid having financials attached to their plans, or who come out with plans with costs that seem achievable are candidates who are assuredly being disingenuous in terms of where the actual costs are going. Though again, that's where I wind up even more frustrated with Bernie's supporters because they really should just hand Warren the nomination already.

Sorry to cherry pick but this is key. In my mind there is no doubt the future cost are going to be enormous. And that is where a bit of game theory comes into play.

First, acknowledging that the US can't stop climate change. Don't adopt a policy that says we have 10 years but we can get there - that is denialist and sets us on the wrong course. It is why the GND is such a bad and backward looking document.

Yes we should reduce CO2 and other gas emissions in the US as quickly as we can without causing unintended consequence (like folks burn trees because they can't get fossil fuels).

But we need to acknowledge this is going to happen and invest heavily in CCUS and other technologies.

And we need to acknowledge this is going to happen and figure out how to make us more resilient to what is coming and have an adaptation plan. Interesting that a report just came out that there would be a 10x to 100x return on investment in this area.

[Zonkerbl]

Because he said - MAGA. And that is as deep as they went - they were intentionally ignorant.

I guess you are saying the Ds need to be the same? Just say M4A & GND and they should be good.

Fortunately, D's don't seem to be as intentionally ignorant. Polls show that they support M4A until you take away all private insurance - then not so much. They support the GND until they actually read it.

Now - if you are saying we should vote for the D regardless - totally with you. I would vote for a cinderblock with a D stamped on it before I vote for Trump.

But if you are saying to hop on the train with Bernie's version of the GND and M4A during this election period - well, I hope you are just kidding.

And don't forget that with each of our past presidents - they had campaign platforms they pushed through that were very close to their campaign pledges (well, I go back to Carter - so I might have to skip Obama who got undermined).

I'm not going to let you get away with "Dems don't support the gnd after they read it." You claim not to be under the influence of right wing propaganda and then you spout out made up stuff like this. If you're not under the influence of the fox anti-truth machine then act like it. You're not a Dem and you don't speak for them.

Read the polls on both accounts... I'll assume you agree on the rest.

Still not acceptable. Speak for yourself. And I have no idea what polls you are talking about.