THE BEAUTIFUL BUDGET
I don't think it's very beautiful, from what I've heard about it.
No need to increase the military budget, let alone a la
She is too smart of a politician to burn her tail too early, i think she will go through the "normal" route of doing a stint in the senate first.Schumer is up for re-election in 2028 , he will be 78 by then, i think she is playing for his seat and it would be a very symbolic victory against "zionism" as well for her to achieve that.But she will only attempt that if she has a go
Politics has changed so much in just the past eight years, I think she could go straight from the House to succesfully winning the nomination for President.
She's already a superstar within her party.
If anything running sooner rather than later would help her more than waiting until some new 'superstar' takes her place.
Lol at Lucy pimping a tiny tax deduction to the poors for two years when billionaires and corporations get huge breaks that never expire.
Lol at Lucy pimping a tiny tax deduction to the poors for two years when billionaires and corporations get huge breaks that never expire.
Lol at the troll in chief Landolakes denying that i was simply answering an objective false claim by biggerboat about who the beneficiaries of those cuts are.
What has given you any indication that portraying someone as a "socialist" will stop being effective? There are a whole lot more "middle aged, white male centrists" will vote against AOC than will vote for her.
Yeah, I don't think she’d flip that demo. Going from near zero to even a few percent is a meaningful shift, though, especially if it's tight.
But I didn't mean to imply that I think the big gains would come from middle-aged white centrists. I'm thinking the potential real strides would come from the general electorate, especially low-info voters who vote based on labels. And sure the socialist label will still work but messaging like that has a shelf life, because over time the shock value dulls. And it’s not actually accurate because she’s not a socialist, she’s a social democrat. That distinction doesn’t register right away for low-info voters who vote based on labels, but if that “she’s a socialist” propaganda bubble bursts it stops being an instant disqualifier. Going from “she’s going to tear up the Constitution” to just another flavor of the Democrats is a big shift in perception. Once that happens, the fear-based messaging loses power, and voters start seeing her as less of a threat. And if she runs, I guarantee challenging that narrative will be a cornerstone of her campaign.
I don't really get the belief on here that she would have a serious chance at getting the Democratic nomination in 2028, never mind having much appeal in a general election.
I really haven't given it that much thought but I kind of assumed she could pull Bernie's voters. He had a legit shot at the nomination. So I'm thinking maybe a better candidate with much better messaging could win. General will probably depend on what's going on and who she's up against. But I'm imagining her and Rubio on stage; I think she owns him. She's matured a lot. He behaves like a hysterical teenager.
It does look like the tax credit to SS income is decent. It's actually a progressive tax reform, ironically, because it phases out after 150k~/75k~. So one provision of this giant mess of a bill is good, so what? It also phases out after 2028, so it's not even a permanent change. It's basically what Republicans would call a "gimme" (or at least what they used to call a "gimme" before the cult of Trump took over). So more proof that Republicans have absolutely no ideology anymore.
That being said I just don't care about spreading misinformation. Who cares anymore? This is the world that we're in now. Facts don't matter.
I could answer with evil stuff like asking you if you have booked Farsi lessons already, but i won't because i am not like you.
Please believe me when I tell you if I ever gave you the impression I gave the slightest **** about what you think of my morality you’re more of a lonely delusional incel scumbag piece of **** cockgobbler who will give anything for the feel of another human being than I ever expected
Lol at the troll in chief Landolakes denying that i was simply answering an objective false claim by biggerboat about who the beneficiaries of those cuts are.
True. Your main objective in posting 16 hours a day is to be right about stuff. So far, you're batting about 0.235.
She is savvy and she may get there but I think she’s still too off putting to old white dems and a subset of male dems who were attracted to the Clinton name and killary persona
Yeah, if that's the criteria. But people are really frustrated with the establishment candidates. So if the people feel they have a de facto veto on her since she has so much opposition both inter and intra party, that could mean something. Got me thinking anyway. But I think where she could come up short is with national defense, military, law and order, etc.
I could answer with evil stuff like asking you if you have booked Farsi lessons already, but i won't because i am not like you.
When you want the benefit of saying "evil stuff" but also fluffing yourself for not saying "evil stuff"
It does look like the tax credit to SS income is decent. It's actually a progressive tax reform, ironically, because it phases out after 150k~/75k~. So one provision of this giant mess of a bill is good, so what? It also phases out after 2028, so it's not even a permanent change. It's basically what Republicans would call a "gimme" (or at least what they used to call a "gimme"
Looks like a lot of fluff. Haven't really gone through it but it seems like the most significant cuts either occur after the mid-terms or get phased in starting in 2028. In other words: this is what we plan on doing to you unless you vote us out of office beforehand.
Looks like a lot of fluff. Haven't really gone through it but it seems like the most significant cuts either occur after the mid-terms or get phased in starting in 2028. In other words: this is what we plan on doing to you unless you vote us out of office beforehand.
Cuts to green subsidies start from Sept 2025. To medicaid, a week after midterm elections (lol).
Tax cuts are the opposite. The non permanent ones are immediate in effect and they fade out in the vicinity of important elections (2028 mostly).
Genius framing by the GOP. It's "you either confirm our positive subsidies or you take the blame close to elections, and our cuts to welfare happen immediately after elections so the dumb voters forget by next election cycle time".
Yeah, if that's the criteria. But people are really frustrated with the establishment candidates. So if the people feel they have a de facto veto on her since she has so much opposition both inter and intra party, that could mean something. Got me thinking anyway. But I think where she could come up short is with national defense, military, law and order, etc.
She comes up short because she's a she.
Only insofar as people want to manipulate facts to their advantage. In order to know how to lie in a beneficial way, you have to know what the truth is.
nono i mean among them to decide for example who to back in primaries, which party to donate to in specific cases, who to lobby and why, and so on
When you want the benefit of saying "evil stuff" but also fluffing yourself for not saying "evil stuff"
A martyr this guy is
I think we all had missed this policy provision in the BBB which restricts access to taxpayers subsidies for healthcare even for legal immigrants, although only for a portion of them.
very very good, there is absolutely no reason to give any welfare to immigrants alone, they can't vote so why the hell should give them even a cent to begin with? if they don't like it they can go back home
you only want people who don't qualify for welfare anyway to begin with
I think we all had missed this policy provision in the BBB which restricts access to taxpayers subsidies for healthcare even for legal immigrants, although only for a portion of them.very very good, there is absolutely no reason to give any welfare to immigrants alone, they can't vote so why the hell should give them even a cent to begin with? if they don't like it they can go
you’re a disgusting human sir
people who think poor legal immigrants are deserving of financial help can always donate to them.
why do you think it is disgusting to oppose state mandate welfare to people who, purportedly, have been accepted in the country because they make the country better? qualifying for welfare should be ground for deportation
people who think poor legal immigrants are deserving of financial help can always donate to them.
why do you think it is disgusting to oppose state mandate welfare to people who, purportedly, have been accepted in the country because they make the country better? qualifying for welfare should be ground for deportation
yes and I understand you are a disgusting person with perverse values. there’s no point arguing this because it’s a matter of values. you think that if someone can’t afford healthcare and no one wants to help them they should just die anyway. so what’s the point of even debating a disgusting person like you who gets a boner when people die from poverty?
Yeah, I don't think she’d flip that demo. Going from near zero to even a few percent is a meaningful shift, though, especially if it's tight. But I didn't mean to imply that I think the big gains would come from middle-aged white centrists. I'm thinking the potential real strides would come from the general electorate, especially low-info voters who vote based on labels.
With all due respect, the pained attempts at separating Social Democrat from Socialist are idiotic.
AOC calls herself a Democratic Socialist, not Social Democrat. Parse that difference if you want.
