Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
TobiasFunke

Amy Klobuchar for President 2020

Recommended Posts

BTW, on the positive for Ms. Klobuchar, the Yale, University of Chicago daily double is a very impressive accomplishment.  She is very bright and very driven.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile on to things that actually matter...Klobuchar would crush her competition (and Trump) if the Democrats had the balls to make the national debt / deficit a debate topic.

 

Senator Klobuchar's plan would seek to “reverse this trend with the goal of lowering the debt to GDP ratio by the end of her first term and putting our country on a sustainable fiscal path.”

The plan includes a commitment to “Govern with Fiscal Responsibility” by reducing debt as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and “putting our country on a sustainable fiscal path.” To begin this process, Senator Klobuchar proposes to establish a dedicated fund to finance deficit reduction during normal times and stimulus during economic downturns, eliminate duplicative government programs, and move to biennial budgeting with a 25-year budget window.

During normal economic times, new revenue increases or cost savings dedicated to the fund would go toward deficit reduction. During economic downturns, the fund would automatically be tapped to increase funding for government programs

Senator Klobuchar plans to “initially seed the fund" with $300 billion from raising the corporate tax rate and eliminating duplicative government spending.

http://www.crfb.org/blogs/amy-klobuchars-plan-govern-fiscal-responsibility

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jefferson the Caregiver said:

She's not going to get the nom but she is muddying the water.  I don't think now is the time to be celebrating a Klobuchar surge

Plenty of time for the sediment to settle out between now and the convention, at least there would be if folks did not get so breathless so fast.  With the game being about expectations and funding, rather than about vetting and finding the best candidate I take your meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I am aware that hospitals like to create the illusion of full control on discharge matters.  I suspect that this is very effective with the average person, more less persons of less education or experience.  I don't buy that Ms. Klobuchar in any way believed that, or believes it.  I think she is selling something.

I am also acutely aware that a person who has been through severe physical and psychological trauma in the last 24 hours is unlikely to behave - or consider options - the way he or she would otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

I am also acutely aware that a person who has been through severe physical and psychological trauma in the last 24 hours is unlikely to behave - or consider options - the way he or she would otherwise.

You believe her account, uncritically? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

You believe her account, uncritically? 

I haven't heard her account, I've only read articles about it.  And they make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

I haven't heard her account, I've only read articles about it.  And they make sense to me.

I find them true, but embellished, and I believe needlessly so.  

No different than her touting the # of bills she has passed as if she is out there legislating up a storm on national issues constantly, rather than her having addressed a myriad of insubstantial matters as well as several national ones, but far fewer than implied. 

A venal sin at best, self-serving exaggeration by a politician, sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I am well aware. My Pops was an OB.GYN.  Well I remember him making his daily rounds of young mothers recuperating for several days up to a week after giving birth.

 

My last child was born 18 years ago.  We were discharged on a cold and snowy February morning at 08:00 hours after my wife gave birth 8 hours and 35 minutes previously.  I thought that a bit quick and was discommoded much as Ms. Klobuchar was. fortunately my employer was quite accommodating with paternity leave, as they were required to be under FMLA.  I was able to tend to both wife and child.  It was a lot, but it was good.

:thumbup: Yes we were in the same boat but Dr was able to authorize 4 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Ah, looks like Amy has someone’s attention.

Yup. Just look at the increase in traffic in this thread recently for the sole purpose of posting dirt.

With the internet people are going to be able to dig up all kinds of random sound bites in a vacuum / out of context and weave attack narratives around them. That's the advantage someone with almost zero track record like Buttigieg has. 

So be it. She's tough. The bigger challenge is resources.

Edited by PhantomJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PhantomJB said:

Yup. Just look at the increase in traffic in this thread recently for the sole purpose of posting dirt.

With the internet people are going to be able to dig up all kinds of random sound bites in a vacuum / out of context and weave attack narratives around them. That's the advantage someone with almost zero track record like Buttigieg has. 

So be it. She's tough. The bigger challenge is resources.

Will she melt, or be tempered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Will she melt, or be tempered?

She'll eat it with a comb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Interesting clip from 2006 Amy talking about the border.

 

https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1227486350733172738

"We should secure the border and give immigrants a pathway to citizenship" used to be a mainstream position held by completely normal people until Trump came along.  This clip is a nice reminder of that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

"We should secure the border and give immigrants a pathway to citizenship" used to be a mainstream position held by completely normal people until Trump came along.  This clip is a nice reminder of that.

Sure.  It was mainstream.  But it was always a BS, straddle-the-fence, fear-laden position.   “Secure the border” only with Mexico - don’t bother securing the Canadian border, because the perception Americans have is that most Canadians are white, aka “safe.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Sure.  It was mainstream.  But it was always a BS, straddle-the-fence, fear-laden position.   “Secure the border” only with Mexico - don’t bother securing the Canadian border, because the perception Americans have is that most Canadians are white, aka “safe.”

If you're a "border security" person, the reason why you're not worried about the Canadian border is because illegal immigration from Canada is trivial compared to the volume of illegal immigration from Mexico.  There's no reason to assume a racist motivation for that position.

I mostly don't care about securing the border -- I'm not opposed to more border security, but it's not something I have much of an opinion about one way or the other.  That said, if more border security will calm people down and make it easier to liberalize our immigration process, that's a great trade-off IMO.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 10:21 AM, Don Quixote said:

In. I've said in other threads that I prefer a wonky, drama-free President next time around who will pledge a return to normalcy (without Teapot Dome).  I think she would fit that bill.  

 

22 hours ago, joffer said:
On 11/8/2018 at 10:24 AM, joffer said:

in

 

On 11/8/2018 at 10:27 AM, Henry Ford said:

I've been shouting this from the rooftops.

She won her Senate race three times - with 58%, 65%, and 60% of the vote.  She's a winner.  She's got a sharp legal mind.  She's measured when she's on camera.  And she'd carry the Midwest, which is the great difference maker.

Beto as VP.

:hifive:

got you by 3 minutes!!!

Well, I got you joffer by 3 minutes.

Edited by Don Quixote
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If you're a "border security" person, the reason why you're not worried about the Canadian border is because illegal immigration from Canada is trivial compared to the volume of illegal immigration from Mexico.  There's no reason to assume a racist motivation for that position.

I mostly don't care about securing the border -- I'm not opposed to more border security, but it's not something I have much of an opinion about one way or the other.  That said, if more border security will calm people down and make it easier to liberalize our immigration process, that's a great trade-off IMO.

I don’t disagree with the above.  It’s pragmatic and rational.   Sadly, it reminds me of the stupid things I have to do at work to manipulate people into doing the right thing.

Border security has always been about optics more than impact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think digging up dirt on candidates works any more. Sure, go back 35 years and there's Bernie saying nice things about the commie USSR and Bloomburg treated minorities abominably when he was mayor and Klobuchar treated her underlings abysmally and on and on. It was proven four years ago that that stuff doesn't matter because we elected somebody with lots more skeletons in his closet than all of the Dems combined. Worse, he's given credence to our misgivings by his appalling ignorance and childish behavior -- he's who we thought he was -- and he's favored to win again in November. 

So hurl your dirt. I don't think I care. More, I don't think you care if you vote for Donald Trump.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, roadkill1292 said:

I don't think digging up dirt on candidates works any more. Sure, go back 35 years and there's Bernie saying nice things about the commie USSR and Bloomburg treated minorities abominably when he was mayor and Klobuchar treated her underlings abysmally and on and on. It was proven four years ago that that stuff doesn't matter because we elected somebody with lots more skeletons in his closet than all of the Dems combined. Worse, he's given credence to our misgivings by his appalling ignorance and childish behavior -- he's who we thought he was -- and he's favored to win again in November. 

So hurl your dirt. I don't think I care. More, I don't think you care if you vote for Donald Trump.

it was proven for one side.  it could still matter in the D primary

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 10:55 AM, Ditkaless Wonders said:

So we are saying that the only time she could have watched the videos was during treatment of her child, as in a procedure?  Seems unacceptably draconian. 

 

I am also curious.  Ms. Klobuchar was a highly educated, extremely successful lawyer.  Am I to believe she believed she had only those two choices?  Did she think she was not free to be discharged without filling out the form as to whether or not she watched those videos?  Did she or does she believe that hospitals can hold you against your will (Absent court ordered psych holds or presumptive psych holds in those states which have such.)

My wife and I are highly educated lawyers and neither of us could have worked a remote control in the 24 hours after my son was born.  I was just tired from the constant crying. My wife was exhausted and in severe pain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

My wife and I are highly educated lawyers and neither of us could have worked a remote control in the 24 hours after my son was born.  I was just tired from the constant crying. My wife was exhausted and in severe pain. 

That goes to the value of the idea, not to her exaggeration of her tale to make herself more heroic.  I have not been speaking out against the idea. I have questioned the veracity of her origin story, a bit.  My questions do not disqualify her in my mind.  They just give me pause to actually think about what she says and how she says it.  I do the same with nearly everybody.  It is a habit after years of prosecuting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 7:21 AM, Don Quixote said:

In. I've said in other threads that I prefer a wonky, drama-free President next time around who will pledge a return to normalcy (without Teapot Dome).  I think she would fit that bill.  

I keep coming back to her and this thread as well as Mayor Pete's. I don't think I can vote for Donald Trump this time around -- and didn't last time -- but I am less likely to vote third party, and I find myself sort of hoping she can be the wonky, drama-free President that we need, IMHO.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I keep coming back to her and this thread as well as Mayor Pete's. I don't think I can vote for Donald Trump this time around -- and didn't last time -- but I am less likely to vote third party, and I find myself sort of hoping she can be the wonky, drama-free President that we need, IMHO.

Certainly she would be drama-free compared to Trump, likely compared also to Obama, Bush, and Clinton.  She is well-educated.  My concern with her is that she has remarkably little executive administrative experience.   I can appreciate, however, that maybe judgment makes up for some of that.   Maybe Presidents need only to set a tone, a philosophical course, a set of goals and then allow their cabinet and the professional administrators already in all of the agencies and departments to do their jobs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Certainly she would be drama-free compared to Trump, likely compared also to Obama, Bush, and Clinton.  She is well-educated.  My concern with her is that she has remarkably little executive administrative experience.   I can appreciate, however, that maybe judgment makes up for some of that.   Maybe Presidents need only to set a tone, a philosophical course, a set of goals and then allow their cabinet and the professional administrators already in all of the agencies and departments to do their jobs. 

I share your concern about executive experience as opposed to merely legislative experience. I worry about all the Democratic candidates' foreign policy mettle as commander-in-chief and I wonder how they will handle other duties incumbent upon the executive branch. I'm not even sure what sort of team she'd put in place. So there are still a lot of questions, but every time I hear her speak, I'm enticed.

Although, I totally agree with you about something I also pointed out upthread about her touting her legislative accomplishments like they were really something when in reality most of them were appropriations-type stuff. 

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I share your concern about executive experience as opposed to merely legislative experience. I worry about all the Democratic candidates' foreign policy mettle as commander-in-chief and I wonder how they will handle other duties incumbent upon the executive branch. I'm not even sure what sort of team she'd put in place. So there are still a lot of questions, but every time I hear her speak, I'm enticed.

Although, I totally agree with you about something I also pointed out upthread about her touting her legislative accomplishments like they were really something when in reality most of them were appropriations-type stuff. 

Maybe I place too much emphasis on this.  In the end our past governors who have assumed the role have not really been without a learning curve.  Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter ….  Maybe the job is so unique that nobody is prepared, we just need intelligence, emotional maturity, and philosophical bent.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Maybe I place too much emphasis on this.  In the end our past governors who have assumed the role have not really been without a learning curve.  Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter ….  Maybe the job is so unique that nobody is prepared, we just need intelligence, emotional maturity, and philosophical bent.

I don't think you place too much emphasis on it. I think being prepared as governor is a lot different than as senator. People have certainly preferred governors as presidential winners since the seventies -- before Obama, that is, sometimes for the reason of experience. A cabinet is different from a legislative staff. The ins and outs of the executive terrain and the balancing of powerful departments at the ready is unlike anything a senator will have done, IMHO. Deployment of the proper departments with the proper charges is something one would get a feel for as governor that one could not possibly experience as legislator.

Anyway, I'm just saying the same thing over and over, so I'll stop now. 

Here's my take, just in general, and why this is likely now a thread I'll visit consistently. I worry about foreign policy the most of anything. I worry about stability in domestic politics and economy second. And third, I worry about political corruption and plutocracy or oligarchy becoming our form of government instead of keeping a republic.

Trump satisfies none of those concerns for me. I don't feel assuaged foreign policy-wise with our muddling the waters with NATO and other actions, I'm worried about the trillion dollar deficit undermining future earnings and growth, and I'm worried that we're headed down a more authoritarian path than I'd like.

So...Klobuchar. Step up. All ears. 

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Maybe I place too much emphasis on this.  In the end our past governors who have assumed the role have not really been without a learning curve.  Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter ….  Maybe the job is so unique that nobody is prepared, we just need intelligence, emotional maturity, and philosophical bent.

The difference is that governors have executive experience.  They have run and managed very large organizations.   Senators don’t have that - at best, they run a small staff of people.   And in Klobuchar’s case, it sounds like her style of running that small staff has been.....a challenge for those around her......

Anyway, when you vote for most senators, it’s likely that they don’t have much (if any) executive experience.  Obama had basically none when he got elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama never had any executive experience before becoming president.  He barely had any government experience of any kind.  And he did just fine.

I agree with DW that wisdom is a lot more important than experience for a position like this.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Certainly she would be drama-free compared to Trump, likely compared also to Obama, Bush, and Clinton.  She is well-educated.  My concern with her is that she has remarkably little executive administrative experience.   I can appreciate, however, that maybe judgment makes up for some of that.   Maybe Presidents need only to set a tone, a philosophical course, a set of goals and then allow their cabinet and the professional administrators already in all of the agencies and departments to do their jobs. 

This is part of the reason I think Castro is her ideal running mate if she gets that far. 

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, McBokonon said:

This is part of the reason I think Castro is her ideal running mate if she gets that far. 

He's a good candidate regardless of the eventual nominee. I think there's lots of good Dem veep choices and I hope we go younger with the eventual selection. We need the next generation to step up and take charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 10:32 AM, Godsbrother said:

You don't think that Bloomberg could beat Trump?

Maybe but she really could. His baggage is bigger than hers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 6:58 AM, McBokonon said:

This is part of the reason I think Castro is her ideal running mate if she gets that far. 

I like taking a good VP candidate from a key state that could help in an election and have been impressed the little that I have heard from Sen Sherrod Brown from Ohio. I think he and Klobuchar are on the same page. Approval rating isn’t bad...would that help bring home the all important state for the ticket?

Edited by lazyike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 10:28 AM, lod001 said:

Tulsi is not getting the votes she deserves. Yang has given up. Amy is the last chance to get my vote. She's the only one that could possibly beat Trump. Pick anyone else and Trump wins.

However, the smart D move is to sacrifice Bernie and then run Amy K. in 2024.

Nevermind. She's lost her mind.

Democratic presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar says she no longer believes English should be the national language of the U.S., disavowing a vote she took more than a decade ago as she tries to build support in a state where Hispanics make up a critical constituency.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Nevermind. She's lost her mind.

Democratic presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar says she no longer believes English should be the national language of the U.S., disavowing a vote she took more than a decade ago as she tries to build support in a state where Hispanics make up a critical constituency.

 

Are you aware that the US has never had an official language?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Are you aware that the US has never had an official language?

Not true at all. Bull #### has long been the official U.S. language.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lod001 said:

Nevermind. She's lost her mind.

Democratic presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar says she no longer believes English should be the national language of the U.S., disavowing a vote she took more than a decade ago as she tries to build support in a state where Hispanics make up a critical constituency.

 

Somehow I doubt you were ever voting for anyone but Trump if this is what you consider losing ones mind

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s interesting that Amy was apparently in favor of making English the official language back in 2007. I know this has been an idea that liberals have been against for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there was more support than I would have expected:

"Klobuchar was one of 17 Democrats to support a 2007 amendment that would have reversed President Bill Clinton's executive order requiring federal agencies to provide materials in languages other than English. It passed 64-33, but the larger immigration bill died.

Klobuchar joined other moderate Democrats and Democrats from red states, like Montana Sen. Max Baucus and North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, in voting yes. Among those who voted no were 2020 candidates Bernie Sanders, a senator from Vermont, and Joe Biden, then a senator from Delaware. Barack Obama, then a senator from Illinois, and Harry Reid, then a senator from Nevada, also voted no."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My objection to Klobuchar is that, in close to a year of watching her, i've never seen her add anything fresh on any issue. All variations upon "We should handle that sensibly". Got nothing against her, but even less for her and have never thought her candidacy was based on any more than "oo - I'm on TV" during the Kavanaugh hearings

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

My objection to Klobuchar is that, in close to a year of watching her, i've never seen her add anything fresh on any issue. All variations upon "We should handle that sensibly". Got nothing against her, but even less for her and have never thought her candidacy was based on any more than "oo - I'm on TV" during the Kavanaugh hearings

Which is why her ceiling is VP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.