i like her too bad she's not your coveted biden.
Second Round of Democratic Debates
- Thread starter Unclebaldrick
- Start date
i like her too bad she's not your coveted biden.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Please post any quote whatsoever where I said I favored Biden, orw
if he's nominated are you going to vote him?
bernie didn't vote for the hyde amendment..
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Thanks for admitting you lied, ORW
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I have already said I will vote for the Democratic candidate, unlike you who clearly believed that Hillary was a murderess and voted for Trump when Bernie got beat. What is your point?
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Tulsi/Yang 2020
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Yang's UBI lol.
255 million Americans are over 18.
1k dollars each per month is 255 billion dollars.
12 months = 3.05 trillion dollars per year.
no
255 million Americans are over 18.
1k dollars each per month is 255 billion dollars.
12 months = 3.05 trillion dollars per year.
no
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
No thanks, one Putin ass puppet was enough
Also, didn’t conald brag about walking in on naked underage girls?
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
You end up saving a lot of money tho
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Plus you won’t need to ever get a job ya fucking sponge
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Free Stuff!
John Stossel
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2019 12:00 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
Source: AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee
Never before have presidential candidates offered voters so much “free” stuff.
Kamala Harris wants you to “collect up to $500 a month.”
Elizabeth Warren says, “We need to go tenfold in our research and development in green energy.”
No one has tracked the cost of all of the promises. So my video team did!
Who will spend the most?
Here are the new spending proposals from the five most popular (according to ElectionBettingOdds.com) candidates.
In my latest video, we break it down by category, education spending first:
Joe Biden wants to “triple the amount of money we spend for Title I schools” ($32 billion) create “universal pre-K” ($26 billion), provide “free community college” ($6 billion per year) and double the number of psychologists and social workers in schools ($14 billion) — $78 billion total.
That’s a lot, but much less than what Kamala Harris would spend.
She too wants to “make community college free” ($6 billion), but she’d add debt-free “four-year public college” ($80.1 billion), “increase government’s investment in childcare” dramatically ($60 billion) and “give the average public school teacher a $13,000 raise” ($31.5 billion) for a total of $177 billion.
Pete Buttigieg rarely says what his proposals would cost, but he at least seems to want to spend less than Harris.
He touts “free college for low- and middle-income students” and would give teachers more money. Assuming his plan is like Harris’, that brings his education total to $87 billion.
Elizabeth Warren would spend much more.
“You’ll be debt-free!” she tells students. Taxpayers, unfortunately, will be deeper in debt, since she would “forgive” most existing student debt and make public college tuition-free ($125 billion).
She also wants a “Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act” ($70 billion).
These big-ticket items put her in the first place so far.
But wait! Bernie Sanders would spend even more.
He’d completely “eliminate student debt,” “make public colleges and universities tuition-free” and provide universal daycare and pre-K. That totals $280 billion, so Sanders “wins” in education spending.
I assumed the self-described socialist would be the biggest spender, but he’s got lots of competition! Let’s look at health care spending.
Harris, Sanders and Warren all propose “Medicare for All,” including for people here illegally.
Sanders goes further, saying, “Under our plan, people go to any doctor they want.” He admits it will cost between $3 trillion and $4 trillion per year, about what the government now spends on everything. How will he pay for that? Well, somehow the rich will pay. Or Martians. Somebody.
Sanders, Harris, and Warren all said they’d ban private health insurance — although Harris now says she’d let private companies sell “Medicare plans” that “adhere to strict Medicare requirements on costs and benefits.” She also claims her “Medicare for All” will be cheaper than Sanders’ version, but as of now, there is no independently calculated cost.
When it comes to the environment, all Democratic candidates but Biden say they support the Green New Deal, which Republicans say would cost $93 trillion. For our ranking, I went with the lowest estimate we could find: An economist who likes the idea says it will cost around $500 billion a year.
Welfare? Harris would increase benefits and have the government pay your rent if it’s over 30% of your income ($94 billion), and Friday she offered $75 billion to black colleges and minority entrepreneurs.
Warren wants to spend more ($50 billion) on housing.
Sanders would increase food stamps for kids ($10.8 billion), boost Social Security benefits ($19 billion) and guarantee everyone a government job ($158 billion), for a total of $187.8 billion.
President Donald Trump, who says America will never be a socialist country, hasn’t been a responsible spender either.
Since he took office, spending increased about $500 billion per year. Trump did propose some cuts, but when Congress ignored his cuts and increased spending, he signed the bills anyway.
Now he says he’d spend even more: $200 billion a year for infrastructure, $8.6 billion for the border wall construction, $1.6 billion for more NASA funding and on and on, for a total of $267 billion.
We can’t afford it! The federal government is already $22 trillion in debt -- $150,000 per taxpayer.
While Trump’s $267 billion is bad, the Democrats’ plans are worse. We counted $297 billion proposed by Biden, $690 billion from Buttigieg, $3.8 trillion from Warren, $4 trillion from Sanders and $4.3 trillion from Harris. That would double what the entire federal government spends now.
Senator Harris “wins” the free stuff contest.
Taxpayers lose.
John Stossel
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2019 12:00 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
Source: AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee
Never before have presidential candidates offered voters so much “free” stuff.
Kamala Harris wants you to “collect up to $500 a month.”
Elizabeth Warren says, “We need to go tenfold in our research and development in green energy.”
No one has tracked the cost of all of the promises. So my video team did!
Who will spend the most?
Here are the new spending proposals from the five most popular (according to ElectionBettingOdds.com) candidates.
In my latest video, we break it down by category, education spending first:
Joe Biden wants to “triple the amount of money we spend for Title I schools” ($32 billion) create “universal pre-K” ($26 billion), provide “free community college” ($6 billion per year) and double the number of psychologists and social workers in schools ($14 billion) — $78 billion total.
That’s a lot, but much less than what Kamala Harris would spend.
She too wants to “make community college free” ($6 billion), but she’d add debt-free “four-year public college” ($80.1 billion), “increase government’s investment in childcare” dramatically ($60 billion) and “give the average public school teacher a $13,000 raise” ($31.5 billion) for a total of $177 billion.
Pete Buttigieg rarely says what his proposals would cost, but he at least seems to want to spend less than Harris.
He touts “free college for low- and middle-income students” and would give teachers more money. Assuming his plan is like Harris’, that brings his education total to $87 billion.
Elizabeth Warren would spend much more.
“You’ll be debt-free!” she tells students. Taxpayers, unfortunately, will be deeper in debt, since she would “forgive” most existing student debt and make public college tuition-free ($125 billion).
She also wants a “Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act” ($70 billion).
These big-ticket items put her in the first place so far.
But wait! Bernie Sanders would spend even more.
He’d completely “eliminate student debt,” “make public colleges and universities tuition-free” and provide universal daycare and pre-K. That totals $280 billion, so Sanders “wins” in education spending.
I assumed the self-described socialist would be the biggest spender, but he’s got lots of competition! Let’s look at health care spending.
Harris, Sanders and Warren all propose “Medicare for All,” including for people here illegally.
Sanders goes further, saying, “Under our plan, people go to any doctor they want.” He admits it will cost between $3 trillion and $4 trillion per year, about what the government now spends on everything. How will he pay for that? Well, somehow the rich will pay. Or Martians. Somebody.
Sanders, Harris, and Warren all said they’d ban private health insurance — although Harris now says she’d let private companies sell “Medicare plans” that “adhere to strict Medicare requirements on costs and benefits.” She also claims her “Medicare for All” will be cheaper than Sanders’ version, but as of now, there is no independently calculated cost.
When it comes to the environment, all Democratic candidates but Biden say they support the Green New Deal, which Republicans say would cost $93 trillion. For our ranking, I went with the lowest estimate we could find: An economist who likes the idea says it will cost around $500 billion a year.
Welfare? Harris would increase benefits and have the government pay your rent if it’s over 30% of your income ($94 billion), and Friday she offered $75 billion to black colleges and minority entrepreneurs.
Warren wants to spend more ($50 billion) on housing.
Sanders would increase food stamps for kids ($10.8 billion), boost Social Security benefits ($19 billion) and guarantee everyone a government job ($158 billion), for a total of $187.8 billion.
President Donald Trump, who says America will never be a socialist country, hasn’t been a responsible spender either.
Since he took office, spending increased about $500 billion per year. Trump did propose some cuts, but when Congress ignored his cuts and increased spending, he signed the bills anyway.
Now he says he’d spend even more: $200 billion a year for infrastructure, $8.6 billion for the border wall construction, $1.6 billion for more NASA funding and on and on, for a total of $267 billion.
We can’t afford it! The federal government is already $22 trillion in debt -- $150,000 per taxpayer.
While Trump’s $267 billion is bad, the Democrats’ plans are worse. We counted $297 billion proposed by Biden, $690 billion from Buttigieg, $3.8 trillion from Warren, $4 trillion from Sanders and $4.3 trillion from Harris. That would double what the entire federal government spends now.
Senator Harris “wins” the free stuff contest.
Taxpayers lose.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I don't like Gabbard at all. She was a fobbit when she was in. She did it just to have it on her resume. She loves to call herself a "combat veteran". She deployed with a fucking desk and had hot showers. She might as well have been in Manhattan. She doesn't speak for me. She was a fucking field officer who didn't carry a rifle. She worked in a national guard combat support hospital that was hit by mortars twice with no casualties. I can't stand fobbits who go around constantly telling everyone they're a veteran just to be treated like an adult. She got paid more than I have in my savings account and never saw combat. People like that can be vets on paper but they don't get to go around acting like they have ever seen America's enemies up close and personally. If one person in a battalion is within a mile of small arms fire once, the entire battalion gets combat badges. By all means, good on her for volunteering for the uniform, but she can stfu now. Even the military had to go out and say that she couldn't be in uniform on her campaign ads and that they wouldn't endorse her.
Her opposition to TPP is one of the direct causes of the trade war with China.
She was opposed by the Occupy movement and the ACLU.
She's a populist who receives too many favorable stories from Russia Insider, RT and Sputnik.
She has received contributions from gun industries.
She said this:
She opposes prosecuting a Russian spy asset and rapist named Assange.
She is the one who assisted Bernie in tossing 2016 to Trump.
Her public criticism for the Iran nuclear deal made her a darling to the right. Breitbart used it (among much of her other fetid words) to great effect in article after article. She is probably their sweetest little darling. They particularly love her Islamophobia.
Steve Bannon is her biggest fan.
She appeared regularly on Fox News criticizing Obama from 2014 onwards.
She supported Trump's travel bans.
Her opposition to TPP is one of the direct causes of the trade war with China.
She was opposed by the Occupy movement and the ACLU.
She's a populist who receives too many favorable stories from Russia Insider, RT and Sputnik.
She has received contributions from gun industries.
She said this:
To be expected from the daughter of an anti-gay activist conservative politician. She then employed islamophobia as her excuse to do a 180 on her homophobia.
She opposes prosecuting a Russian spy asset and rapist named Assange.
She is the one who assisted Bernie in tossing 2016 to Trump.
Her public criticism for the Iran nuclear deal made her a darling to the right. Breitbart used it (among much of her other fetid words) to great effect in article after article. She is probably their sweetest little darling. They particularly love her Islamophobia.
Steve Bannon is her biggest fan.
She appeared regularly on Fox News criticizing Obama from 2014 onwards.
She supported Trump's travel bans.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Clearly you're terrified (as you should be) that Harris is going to throw Donald Trump in the Slammer. Harris is offering the biggest middle class tax cuts up there. She's not pushing M4A. She's about making it a public option. You can opt out of Medicare with her plan. We get it, you would prefer to have 27 million uninsured Americans.Free Stuff!
John Stossel
|
Posted: Jul 31, 2019 12:00 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
Source: AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee
Never before have presidential candidates offered voters so much “free” stuff.
Kamala Harris wants you to “collect up to $500 a month.”
Elizabeth Warren says, “We need to go tenfold in our research and development in green energy.”
No one has tracked the cost of all of the promises. So my video team did!
Who will spend the most?
Here are the new spending proposals from the five most popular (according to ElectionBettingOdds.com) candidates.
In my latest video, we break it down by category, education spending first:
Joe Biden wants to “triple the amount of money we spend for Title I schools” ($32 billion) create “universal pre-K” ($26 billion), provide “free community college” ($6 billion per year) and double the number of psychologists and social workers in schools ($14 billion) — $78 billion total.
That’s a lot, but much less than what Kamala Harris would spend.
She too wants to “make community college free” ($6 billion), but she’d add debt-free “four-year public college” ($80.1 billion), “increase government’s investment in childcare” dramatically ($60 billion) and “give the average public school teacher a $13,000 raise” ($31.5 billion) for a total of $177 billion.
Pete Buttigieg rarely says what his proposals would cost, but he at least seems to want to spend less than Harris.
He touts “free college for low- and middle-income students” and would give teachers more money. Assuming his plan is like Harris’, that brings his education total to $87 billion.
Elizabeth Warren would spend much more.
“You’ll be debt-free!” she tells students. Taxpayers, unfortunately, will be deeper in debt, since she would “forgive” most existing student debt and make public college tuition-free ($125 billion).
She also wants a “Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act” ($70 billion).
These big-ticket items put her in the first place so far.
But wait! Bernie Sanders would spend even more.
He’d completely “eliminate student debt,” “make public colleges and universities tuition-free” and provide universal daycare and pre-K. That totals $280 billion, so Sanders “wins” in education spending.
I assumed the self-described socialist would be the biggest spender, but he’s got lots of competition! Let’s look at health care spending.
Harris, Sanders and Warren all propose “Medicare for All,” including for people here illegally.
Sanders goes further, saying, “Under our plan, people go to any doctor they want.” He admits it will cost between $3 trillion and $4 trillion per year, about what the government now spends on everything. How will he pay for that? Well, somehow the rich will pay. Or Martians. Somebody.
Sanders, Harris, and Warren all said they’d ban private health insurance — although Harris now says she’d let private companies sell “Medicare plans” that “adhere to strict Medicare requirements on costs and benefits.” She also claims her “Medicare for All” will be cheaper than Sanders’ version, but as of now, there is no independently calculated cost.
When it comes to the environment, all Democratic candidates but Biden say they support the Green New Deal, which Republicans say would cost $93 trillion. For our ranking, I went with the lowest estimate we could find: An economist who likes the idea says it will cost around $500 billion a year.
Welfare? Harris would increase benefits and have the government pay your rent if it’s over 30% of your income ($94 billion), and Friday she offered $75 billion to black colleges and minority entrepreneurs.
Warren wants to spend more ($50 billion) on housing.
Sanders would increase food stamps for kids ($10.8 billion), boost Social Security benefits ($19 billion) and guarantee everyone a government job ($158 billion), for a total of $187.8 billion.
President Donald Trump, who says America will never be a socialist country, hasn’t been a responsible spender either.
Since he took office, spending increased about $500 billion per year. Trump did propose some cuts, but when Congress ignored his cuts and increased spending, he signed the bills anyway.
Now he says he’d spend even more: $200 billion a year for infrastructure, $8.6 billion for the border wall construction, $1.6 billion for more NASA funding and on and on, for a total of $267 billion.
We can’t afford it! The federal government is already $22 trillion in debt -- $150,000 per taxpayer.
While Trump’s $267 billion is bad, the Democrats’ plans are worse. We counted $297 billion proposed by Biden, $690 billion from Buttigieg, $3.8 trillion from Warren, $4 trillion from Sanders and $4.3 trillion from Harris. That would double what the entire federal government spends now.
Senator Harris “wins” the free stuff contest.
Taxpayers lose.
Immigrants already pay more taxes than you do. Why do you want them to die of treatable conditions? Trump's concentration camps cost much more than letting them see doctors.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Kind of like the mass of online trolls being paid to spread disinformation.
Likely because a bunch of foreign bots flooded the results for Tulsi. She is a puppet.
Dr.Amber Trichome
Well-Known Member
My husband like Cory. The kool aid comment was hysterical! I was just reading an article about him saying
He has been compared by people who have known him his whole adult life to the Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, and the biblical figures Moses and Abraham.
alas, i voted hilldawg and you know this.
many of these candidates need to go into the cabinet of the dem that wins..they have some great ideas. i like yang as well.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Michael Moore urges Michelle Obama to run against Trump
Filmmaker Michael Moore said in a new interview that there is only one candidate up to the challenge to “crush” President Trump in 2020, “and her last name rhymes with Obama.”
“In fact, it is Obama — Michelle Obama,” Moore said on MSNBC. “Everybody watching this right now knows she is a beloved American and she would go in there and she would beat him.”
Moore said it is not enough to have a Democratic candidate who will defeat Trump, noting that his 2016 Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, won 3 million more votes nationwide.
“The only way to remove Trump is to crush Trump. And that’s the question that has to be asked, who can crush Trump? Who’s the street fighter?” Moore said.
He said four of the Democratic presidential candidates — former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) — could beat Trump. But he said that is not enough.
Obama, he said, would be able to crush Trump.
“She would beat him in the debates, he wouldn’t be able to bully her, he wouldn’t be able to nickname her,” he said.
Moore cited Obama’s popular tour for her memoir “Becoming."
“She takes the stage and she’s so powerful and so good you just look at that and think of course she could win,” he said.
Obama, however, is not among the vast field of two dozen Democrats looking to face Trump in 2020.
“Well, has anyone asked her?” Moore said. “If asked to serve, I believe she would serve.”
Obama is the most admired woman in the world, according to a July YouGov poll, beating out Oprah Winfrey, Angelina Jolie and Queen Elizabeth II.
A former lawyer and University of Chicago dean, she has made no indication that she intends to run for the presidency or any other office.
The Obamas are likely to hold out on endorsing a candidate until one is chosen by the party.
A spokesperson for the Obamas did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Filmmaker Michael Moore said in a new interview that there is only one candidate up to the challenge to “crush” President Trump in 2020, “and her last name rhymes with Obama.”
“In fact, it is Obama — Michelle Obama,” Moore said on MSNBC. “Everybody watching this right now knows she is a beloved American and she would go in there and she would beat him.”
Moore said it is not enough to have a Democratic candidate who will defeat Trump, noting that his 2016 Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, won 3 million more votes nationwide.
“The only way to remove Trump is to crush Trump. And that’s the question that has to be asked, who can crush Trump? Who’s the street fighter?” Moore said.
He said four of the Democratic presidential candidates — former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) — could beat Trump. But he said that is not enough.
Obama, he said, would be able to crush Trump.
“She would beat him in the debates, he wouldn’t be able to bully her, he wouldn’t be able to nickname her,” he said.
Moore cited Obama’s popular tour for her memoir “Becoming."
“She takes the stage and she’s so powerful and so good you just look at that and think of course she could win,” he said.
Obama, however, is not among the vast field of two dozen Democrats looking to face Trump in 2020.
“Well, has anyone asked her?” Moore said. “If asked to serve, I believe she would serve.”
Obama is the most admired woman in the world, according to a July YouGov poll, beating out Oprah Winfrey, Angelina Jolie and Queen Elizabeth II.
A former lawyer and University of Chicago dean, she has made no indication that she intends to run for the presidency or any other office.
The Obamas are likely to hold out on endorsing a candidate until one is chosen by the party.
A spokesperson for the Obamas did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Right. Even though you were referring to her as a serial killer right before the election, you voted for her. Sure you did.
Sorry, Schuylaar, you lie all the time and this is just another one.
You voted for Trump.