Dok, the reason voters trust Republicans more than Dems on jobs and the economy is because we just can't get it up for those. Dems have a corporate-centrist wing who somehow always manage to ensure that we can't have nice things.
Which is why you're dead wrong when you say we should focus on policies and not personalities. Dammit, EVERY Democrat manages to make some sort of pro-working class policy promises, even if they're kinda mealy-mouthed. What we need to know is which ones are GENUINE and which ones will immediately start serving the donor class once they finish conning the voters. It is the PERSONALITIES that matter. The only way voters have to tell whether the candidate actually means what he or she says is to see them run an earnest, energetic campaign where they are willing, even eager, to be tarred with every socialist/communist/not a rich white guy epithet that Republicans can come up with.
I don't like Mamdani for his policies. Many are fine, some are kinds goofy, but they aren't why I like him unlike him because, for once, I can trust a politician to keep on swinging for the fences on behalf of working people and not decide that he actually works for the rich fucks who screw us every damned day.
In discussing the threat of AI job losses, Dems should expand the talking point to include AI AND self-driving vehicles. It seems very clear that we could see most taxi and rideshare drivers, and a large fraction of truck drivers, losing their jobs over the next decade. That's a huge number of people, and almost all of us know someone who's affected. And the Rs will do nothing to ease the pain.
I'm Independent (NFP)* and I spend two hours a day reading the news online. I do not count Wonkette because you you never make my stomach churn. And I frequently leave laughing.
*No Fucking Party! The GOP started an Independent Party here in Oregon to fool confused olds into voting for them.
I wish I could believe it, but, if voters actually cared about affordability they wouldn't vote gop for the next 40 years. That they still do is evidence that while they say they care about health care or abortion or jobs or gas prices they really don't. Sadly.
Excuse you? Uh no....20%?? Are you a reTHUG? I'm thinking Eisenhower....90% tax for a decade & never going below 75% after that. We have 989 billionaires in the U.S. This has to stop. NOW! You guys make me angry with your low-ball figures. Do you know how much money they've looted for the last 40 years???
Chill, please. I just threw out a WAG not a hard number. You have done the homework I didn't and get full credit. I would love 90%, no deductions or exemptions. BTW what would a Reb be doing here? Except having their head explode?
Well ....what a ridiculous number you threw out. What were you thinking? Bill Clinton taxed them 38%. If you're going to "throw out a WAG" be realistic I have no patience for this simpering "wealth tax" & other idiocies that don't address the problem in any meaningful way. Look up Eisenhower. We have 989 billionaires & that's 989 too many.
"people are frustrated with our healthcare system" - frustrated doesn't begin to describe how I feel about an actively, intentionally predatory system where I'm supposed to thank the perps and praise them as "healthcare heroes."
Eisenhower did it. You have to close the loopholes. Go ahead & tell me..."that's because of the war". Yeah...ok, how about the war on the people for the last 40 years. That's a war too.
It's worth noting that 'raise taxes on the rich'(or some variety, thereof) has been at or near the top of polling responses among swing voters for DECADES.
Taxing the rich is no longer regarded as punishing success. It’s now a necessary measure to counteract the negative effects of wealth hoarding. We can’t continue as a society where a handful of people control the majority of the wealth.
"Imagine you have a billion chocolate chip cookies, and you weren't going to share them with anyone. You couldn't eat them all yourself. You'd get the worst stomachache ever."
Glad to see that "crime" isn't really rating at the moment, and I look forward to the day when people understand that OUR BORDER. IS ALREADY. SECURE. FFS. We seem to have broken through the propaganda on economics, so I have faith we can get there.
Dok, the reason voters trust Republicans more than Dems on jobs and the economy is because we just can't get it up for those. Dems have a corporate-centrist wing who somehow always manage to ensure that we can't have nice things.
Which is why you're dead wrong when you say we should focus on policies and not personalities. Dammit, EVERY Democrat manages to make some sort of pro-working class policy promises, even if they're kinda mealy-mouthed. What we need to know is which ones are GENUINE and which ones will immediately start serving the donor class once they finish conning the voters. It is the PERSONALITIES that matter. The only way voters have to tell whether the candidate actually means what he or she says is to see them run an earnest, energetic campaign where they are willing, even eager, to be tarred with every socialist/communist/not a rich white guy epithet that Republicans can come up with.
I don't like Mamdani for his policies. Many are fine, some are kinds goofy, but they aren't why I like him unlike him because, for once, I can trust a politician to keep on swinging for the fences on behalf of working people and not decide that he actually works for the rich fucks who screw us every damned day.
Ok well Booker needs to be primaried.
Stupid undecideds. What a conc
Awesome, Robyn!
In discussing the threat of AI job losses, Dems should expand the talking point to include AI AND self-driving vehicles. It seems very clear that we could see most taxi and rideshare drivers, and a large fraction of truck drivers, losing their jobs over the next decade. That's a huge number of people, and almost all of us know someone who's affected. And the Rs will do nothing to ease the pain.
I'm Independent (NFP)* and I spend two hours a day reading the news online. I do not count Wonkette because you you never make my stomach churn. And I frequently leave laughing.
*No Fucking Party! The GOP started an Independent Party here in Oregon to fool confused olds into voting for them.
They are the most vile liars of all time. I can smell them a mile away....
“surveillance pricing,” is just the free hand of A1!
I wish I could believe it, but, if voters actually cared about affordability they wouldn't vote gop for the next 40 years. That they still do is evidence that while they say they care about health care or abortion or jobs or gas prices they really don't. Sadly.
Exactly....the biggest decision should be which blue to back, then blue all the time.
Well said, Robyn. I'd just like to reiterate: TAX THE FUCKING RICH!
20% would solve many problems. Except how to shut up their whining.
Excuse you? Uh no....20%?? Are you a reTHUG? I'm thinking Eisenhower....90% tax for a decade & never going below 75% after that. We have 989 billionaires in the U.S. This has to stop. NOW! You guys make me angry with your low-ball figures. Do you know how much money they've looted for the last 40 years???
Chill, please. I just threw out a WAG not a hard number. You have done the homework I didn't and get full credit. I would love 90%, no deductions or exemptions. BTW what would a Reb be doing here? Except having their head explode?
Well ....what a ridiculous number you threw out. What were you thinking? Bill Clinton taxed them 38%. If you're going to "throw out a WAG" be realistic I have no patience for this simpering "wealth tax" & other idiocies that don't address the problem in any meaningful way. Look up Eisenhower. We have 989 billionaires & that's 989 too many.
"people are frustrated with our healthcare system" - frustrated doesn't begin to describe how I feel about an actively, intentionally predatory system where I'm supposed to thank the perps and praise them as "healthcare heroes."
I suppose these swing voters also want to ban abortion and have LGBTQ+ people shot in the streets.
But hey, it the economy, stupid. As long as the white workin’ class is happy, the culturally marginalized can fuck off, eh?
I guess "Healthcare for All" is a "Threat to Democracy"?
Hard to raise taxes on the rich, as a group they are pretty sneaky. That said I will keep voting fo people that promise to try.
Eisenhower did it. You have to close the loopholes. Go ahead & tell me..."that's because of the war". Yeah...ok, how about the war on the people for the last 40 years. That's a war too.
It's worth noting that 'raise taxes on the rich'(or some variety, thereof) has been at or near the top of polling responses among swing voters for DECADES.
Taxing the rich is no longer regarded as punishing success. It’s now a necessary measure to counteract the negative effects of wealth hoarding. We can’t continue as a society where a handful of people control the majority of the wealth.
Hoarding--a behavior of all billionaires.
It's just hard to recognize storage units dressed up like homes.
Mamdani explained it to kindergartners.
"Imagine you have a billion chocolate chip cookies, and you weren't going to share them with anyone. You couldn't eat them all yourself. You'd get the worst stomachache ever."
This reminds me of McSweeney's Internet Tendency column about AI economics.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/ai-economics-for-dummies
I would love to be hopeful about this polling, but polling has failed me so many times in the last decade.
Glad to see that "crime" isn't really rating at the moment, and I look forward to the day when people understand that OUR BORDER. IS ALREADY. SECURE. FFS. We seem to have broken through the propaganda on economics, so I have faith we can get there.