Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
What's the implication here?
Yes- that’s the implication.
Will they be contributing more than the maximum allowable contribution to his campaign?
meh.
I initially went with the laughing emoji, but this is actually not a joke. What we have now is somewhat like wall street "socialism" with government policies and legislation geared toward propping up corporations/wall street investment, probably to an unhealthy degree.
most folks don't go over about $12 at the grocery store or wine shop, but if you're in Napa Valley $45 is probably on the low side of the equation.I don’t think I have ever paid more then $10.00 for a bottle of wine. 45.00
I've always been kind of a pacifist. When I was a kid, my father told me, "Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it."Henry Ford said:
Very informative.ren hoek said:
They see him and realize their guy is not going to be able to win a debate with him. He has very little baggage and is uber pragmatic. He's going to win Iowa and that is going to completely reset the board. They are terrified of him.
I would. Means I get another shot in 4 years to elect someone who isn't a corporate puppet.
Aw shucks man, I'm just a Harvard Rhodes scholar, downhome, openly gay military vet mayor Indiana boy! Go Hoosiers!
Pete’s been supporting Medicare for All Who Want It as a bridge to get to Medicare For All since the beginning.
BHO and the Clintons were pretty low on the net worth spectrum as well. Wonder what changed all that?Henry Ford said:
With the effect that you'd be voting for someone working against healthcare for all AND who is a corporate puppet, and a lot of other bad things, by voting for Trump.
My stance on pro life/pro choice can best be described as apathetic. Don't really care enough to let it sway my vote unless the candidate has an extreme stance.
Those were analogies - not meant to be taken literally, but to illustrate why voting for someone who has a position counter to your own, just because the candidates on your side don't go far enough, is a bad idea.
Unlike some, I don’t really want an extreme leftist in office. My #1 goal is to preserve democracy. That’s it.
Yeah, but they don't come close on m4a. The public option plans, that are already being walked back before the primaries, are hardly better than the ACA, which IMO is worse than the system we had in place before it. You thinkit's a bad idea, fine, I think it is leveraging my voting power. The difference between Trump and Pete/Biden/Warren is marginal at best on these two issues. If the difference between them was as you described, I'd be inclined to agree. But it isn't. And is just the extension of the tactics used in the last election. Last time I voted Stein. This time I'll leverage my vote a step further.
Ok, thanks for the response...this helps.
There has been a noticeable rhetorical shift since the early days of his campaign.
Sure. Fair enough. The problem I have with Pete isn’t that he isn’t smart or capable, or that I want democracy to fall, but that he’s Trump in smarter, more disarming clothing. I don’t want to replace Trump with kinder, gentler corporate sadism.
I read his stance before and his stance now, and they're consistent.
ten days since he posted. his most recent posts were about coke & hookers in the whistleblower thread, but pretty innocuous - could he have got days?
Not yet. I will try to contact him this evening.
For a liberal it sure seems like you are looking for an excuse to vote for Trump. You've asked for a centrist and not a progressive like Warren or Bernie. Yet, you take jabs at Pete and Biden while talking up Trump's economy. Interesting. It's almost like you aren't really a liberal at all.Gopher State said:It’s what you expect from Wall Street Pete
Despite the conspiracy surrounding his "rhetorical shift" Pete’s been supporting Medicare for All Who Want It as a bridge to get to Medicare For All since the beginning.
And oddly enough (or perhaps not) the very transcript ren links to shows that very thing.
What conspiracy? It's facts. Initially he led with it as the "center of gravity" and now he punches left against Sanders/Warren over it. Flipflop.
Rarely is it more complected then that.
