Living up to my name for a second: Being good at Twitter (or other social media) is not necessarily a skill that is transferable to things like diplomacy and making economic policy decisions. This should go without saying, but apparently that's no longer the case.
I've been a fan of Biden for a long time; I wanted him to be the nominee in 2008 (and 2016). I have some concerns about his age, but the idea that his experience and his noted ability to reach across the aisle should be discounted because there are all of these shiny new candidates who aren't as familiar (and who, therefore and thanks to their LACK OF EXPERIENCE have less baggage) is nonsense.
I got three hours of sleep last night, so I'm cranky. But, watching the same damn media clusterf--- that we saw in 2016 ramping up again now, I'm just going to keep saying that the most important skill our schools can teach students is critical thinking.
My older child begins every political discussion with "Well, Millennials want..." and I've started replying with "Are Millennials the Borg?!?" Younger, wiser child says he is going to wait until we are closer to the actual elections to pay close attention, because he thinks the field will have thinned a bit by then. -- smart guy, he is.
The two questions we (people planning to vote for the Dem candidate) need to keep in mind:
1) Who can win?
2) Who would do the best job? -- that means, restoring constitutional norms, restoring our global standing, addressing the really fundamental, important issues that are festering right now, not "Who will push through my pet policy item?" Seriously, if your house is on fire, it's the wrong time to be dithering over the most energy-efficient dishwasher.
Everything else is just noise.
I tend to favor more progressive policies because I think they will do a better job improving our country, but the nastiness from the far left is only hurting democratic chances for taking back the presidency.
To beat Trump, Democrats need to win back the swing states. Biden is the most relatable to this region, and is perfect person to shrug off relentless attacks from the orange menace.
Trying to create things in one step... Socialized health care or free college just doesn't perform well in swing states during a general election. These things need to happen gradually in a conservative country. It's urgent Progressives understand this.
All very well may be true with one exception- environment. Between over population, global warming, resource depletion and pollution (particularly plastic in the oceans), there is no time for being polite. It's do or die time and many are going to die regardless but I'm for reducing the casualties. And how many politicians even give serious voice to these concerns? Damn few.
Agreed, we have been dicking around this one too long. It's existential.
Well, I agree, too. Climate change is an urgent issue, involving national security and the economy. I don't know if the "Green New Deal" is the solution (I haven't read up on it). But I think it is quickly becoming less of a political issue (which it never should have been) and more an urgent matter affecting everyone (the Paradise fire and flooding in Nebraska affect "red" areas).
The appeals to the coal industry, which has been dying for some time, feel to me like dog whistles of another kind. Agent Orange seems to think Pittsburgh, for example, is still the steel town that it was in the 1950s, when it now has clean air, a world-class medical center, and lots of "new economy" jobs -- as well as, uh, the Pirates. Coal mining is a dirty, dangerous job; we can and should provide training for better opportunities.
I think the Dems -- the chattering classes, at least -- run the risk of letting the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good." Getting bogged down in arguments about free college and a timeline for implementing "Medicare for all" just doesn't feel like a winning strategy. And, I would love to have a female president, or a non-white president (and I'm excited about both Harris and Booker). What I really, really want, though, is for the current president to be voted out of office in November, 2020. If he's re-elected, none of the intra-party squabble matter much, do they? So I want to see the Dems nominate someone who can WIN and who can get the country back on track.
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
Living up to my name for a second: Being good at Twitter (or other social media) is not necessarily a skill that is transferable to things like diplomacy and making economic policy decisions. This should go without saying, but apparently that's no longer the case.
I've been a fan of Biden for a long time; I wanted him to be the nominee in 2008 (and 2016). I have some concerns about his age, but the idea that his experience and his noted ability to reach across the aisle should be discounted because there are all of these shiny new candidates who aren't as familiar (and who, therefore and thanks to their LACK OF EXPERIENCE have less baggage) is nonsense.
I got three hours of sleep last night, so I'm cranky. But, watching the same damn media clusterf--- that we saw in 2016 ramping up again now, I'm just going to keep saying that the most important skill our schools can teach students is critical thinking.
My older child begins every political discussion with "Well, Millennials want..." and I've started replying with "Are Millennials the Borg?!?" Younger, wiser child says he is going to wait until we are closer to the actual elections to pay close attention, because he thinks the field will have thinned a bit by then. -- smart guy, he is.
The two questions we (people planning to vote for the Dem candidate) need to keep in mind:
1) Who can win?
2) Who would do the best job? -- that means, restoring constitutional norms, restoring our global standing, addressing the really fundamental, important issues that are festering right now, not "Who will push through my pet policy item?" Seriously, if your house is on fire, it's the wrong time to be dithering over the most energy-efficient dishwasher.
Everything else is just noise.
I tend to favor more progressive policies because I think they will do a better job improving our country, but the nastiness from the far left is only hurting democratic chances for taking back the presidency.
To beat Trump, Democrats need to win back the swing states. Biden is the most relatable to this region, and is perfect person to shrug off relentless attacks from the orange menace.
Trying to create things in one step... Socialized health care or free college just doesn't perform well in swing states during a general election. These things need to happen gradually in a conservative country. It's urgent Progressives understand this.
All very well may be true with one exception- environment. Between over population, global warming, resource depletion and pollution (particularly plastic in the oceans), there is no time for being polite. It's do or die time and many are going to die regardless but I'm for reducing the casualties. And how many politicians even give serious voice to these concerns? Damn few.
Agreed, we have been dicking around this one too long. It's existential.
Well, I agree, too. Climate change is an urgent issue, involving national security and the economy. I don't know if the "Green New Deal" is the solution (I haven't read up on it). But I think it is quickly becoming less of a political issue (which it never should have been) and more an urgent matter affecting everyone (the Paradise fire and flooding in Nebraska affect "red" areas).
The appeals to the coal industry, which has been dying for some time, feel to me like dog whistles of another kind. Agent Orange seems to think Pittsburgh, for example, is still the steel town that it was in the 1950s, when it now has clean air, a world-class medical center, and lots of "new economy" jobs -- as well as, uh, the Pirates. Coal mining is a dirty, dangerous job; we can and should provide training for better opportunities.
I think the Dems -- the chattering classes, at least -- run the risk of letting the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good." Getting bogged down in arguments about free college and a timeline for implementing "Medicare for all" just doesn't feel like a winning strategy. And, I would love to have a female president, or a non-white president (and I'm excited about both Harris and Booker). What I really, really want, though, is for the current president to be voted out of office in November, 2020. If he's re-elected, none of the intra-party squabble matter much, do they? So I want to see the Dems nominate someone who can WIN and who can get the country back on track.
Right on. Well said- we need this to happen.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Living up to my name for a second: Being good at Twitter (or other social media) is not necessarily a skill that is transferable to things like diplomacy and making economic policy decisions. This should go without saying, but apparently that's no longer the case.
I've been a fan of Biden for a long time; I wanted him to be the nominee in 2008 (and 2016). I have some concerns about his age, but the idea that his experience and his noted ability to reach across the aisle should be discounted because there are all of these shiny new candidates who aren't as familiar (and who, therefore and thanks to their LACK OF EXPERIENCE have less baggage) is nonsense.
I got three hours of sleep last night, so I'm cranky. But, watching the same damn media clusterf--- that we saw in 2016 ramping up again now, I'm just going to keep saying that the most important skill our schools can teach students is critical thinking.
My older child begins every political discussion with "Well, Millennials want..." and I've started replying with "Are Millennials the Borg?!?" Younger, wiser child says he is going to wait until we are closer to the actual elections to pay close attention, because he thinks the field will have thinned a bit by then. -- smart guy, he is.
The two questions we (people planning to vote for the Dem candidate) need to keep in mind:
1) Who can win?
2) Who would do the best job? -- that means, restoring constitutional norms, restoring our global standing, addressing the really fundamental, important issues that are festering right now, not "Who will push through my pet policy item?" Seriously, if your house is on fire, it's the wrong time to be dithering over the most energy-efficient dishwasher.
Everything else is just noise.
I tend to favor more progressive policies because I think they will do a better job improving our country, but the nastiness from the far left is only hurting democratic chances for taking back the presidency.
To beat Trump, Democrats need to win back the swing states. Biden is the most relatable to this region, and is perfect person to shrug off relentless attacks from the orange menace.
Trying to create things in one step... Socialized health care or free college just doesn't perform well in swing states during a general election. These things need to happen gradually in a conservative country. It's urgent Progressives understand this.
All very well may be true with one exception- environment. Between over population, global warming, resource depletion and pollution (particularly plastic in the oceans), there is no time for being polite. It's do or die time and many are going to die regardless but I'm for reducing the casualties. And how many politicians even give serious voice to these concerns? Damn few.
Agreed, we have been dicking around this one too long. It's existential.
Well, I agree, too. Climate change is an urgent issue, involving national security and the economy. I don't know if the "Green New Deal" is the solution (I haven't read up on it). But I think it is quickly becoming less of a political issue (which it never should have been) and more an urgent matter affecting everyone (the Paradise fire and flooding in Nebraska affect "red" areas).
The appeals to the coal industry, which has been dying for some time, feel to me like dog whistles of another kind. Agent Orange seems to think Pittsburgh, for example, is still the steel town that it was in the 1950s, when it now has clean air, a world-class medical center, and lots of "new economy" jobs -- as well as, uh, the Pirates. Coal mining is a dirty, dangerous job; we can and should provide training for better opportunities.
I think the Dems -- the chattering classes, at least -- run the risk of letting the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good." Getting bogged down in arguments about free college and a timeline for implementing "Medicare for all" just doesn't feel like a winning strategy. And, I would love to have a female president, or a non-white president (and I'm excited about both Harris and Booker). What I really, really want, though, is for the current president to be voted out of office in November, 2020. If he's re-elected, none of the intra-party squabble matter much, do they? So I want to see the Dems nominate someone who can WIN and who can get the country back on track.
One big idea to rally the base and the moderates.. not 9 of them.
Looks like Kamala is going all in on increasing public teacher's salaries, but at the tune of 315 billion to the federal government budget. I think pay for teachers is woefully pathetic, but shouldn't this be handled at the state level? It's bailing out the states who have been unwilling to address their own problems and improve the competitive wages to retain high quality teachers. I can understand the desire to step in and improve this because it means improved instruction to our youth, but I'm not sure how I feel about the federal government picking up most of the slack here.
Under Harris’s plan, the average teacher in the U.S. would receive a $13,500 pay raise over four years – for a hefty price tag of $315 billion in federal funding. It would be paid for by making unspecified changes to the estate tax (which is levied on assets, like real estate and cash, when a person dies).
States would then receive incentives for closing the pay gap -- for every $1 a state invests in raising teacher pay, the federal government will provide $3 to fully close the gap within four years, according to Harris’s campaign.
The Department of Education would then work with state education agencies to create a base salary goal for new teachers in every state. States and school districts will increase every teacher’s salary until they meet the goal.
Looks like Kamala is going all in on increasing public teacher's salaries, but at the tune of 315 billion to the federal government budget. I think pay for teachers is woefully pathetic, but shouldn't this be handled at the state level? It's bailing out the states who have been unwilling to address their own problems and improve the competitive wages to retain high quality teachers. I can understand the desire to step in and improve this because it means improved instruction to our youth, but I'm not sure how I feel about the federal government picking up most of the slack here.
Under Harris’s plan, the average teacher in the U.S. would receive a $13,500 pay raise over four years – for a hefty price tag of $315 billion in federal funding. It would be paid for by making unspecified changes to the estate tax (which is levied on assets, like real estate and cash, when a person dies).
States would then receive incentives for closing the pay gap -- for every $1 a state invests in raising teacher pay, the federal government will provide $3 to fully close the gap within four years, according to Harris’s campaign.
The Department of Education would then work with state education agencies to create a base salary goal for new teachers in every state. States and school districts will increase every teacher’s salary until they meet the goal.
Generally speaking, I agree that this is a state issue, but the reality is that the state's are not dealing with it effectively. It's a travesty that teachers are not paid anywhere near a number that comports with their importance to our society. If the states aren't going to do it, the fed should because it's appalling to me. If you put a gun to me and said... choose between Bernie college or increasing teacher pay (which comes with higher standards at hiring and evaluation), I would go with the latter. I think this is a really good issue for Kamala and one that it will be hard for the GOP to attack other than around the budget. But they lost their moral latitude on that issue.
Looks like Kamala is going all in on increasing public teacher's salaries, but at the tune of 315 billion to the federal government budget. I think pay for teachers is woefully pathetic, but shouldn't this be handled at the state level? It's bailing out the states who have been unwilling to address their own problems and improve the competitive wages to retain high quality teachers. I can understand the desire to step in and improve this because it means improved instruction to our youth, but I'm not sure how I feel about the federal government picking up most of the slack here.
Under Harris’s plan, the average teacher in the U.S. would receive a $13,500 pay raise over four years – for a hefty price tag of $315 billion in federal funding. It would be paid for by making unspecified changes to the estate tax (which is levied on assets, like real estate and cash, when a person dies).
States would then receive incentives for closing the pay gap -- for every $1 a state invests in raising teacher pay, the federal government will provide $3 to fully close the gap within four years, according to Harris’s campaign.
The Department of Education would then work with state education agencies to create a base salary goal for new teachers in every state. States and school districts will increase every teacher’s salary until they meet the goal.
Generally speaking, I agree that this is a state issue, but the reality is that the state's are not dealing with it effectively. It's a travesty that teachers are not paid anywhere near a number that comports with their importance to our society. If the states aren't going to do it, the fed should because it's appalling to me. If you put a gun to me and said... choose between Bernie college or increasing teacher pay (which comes with higher standards at hiring and evaluation), I would go with the latter. I think this is a really good issue for Kamala and one that it will be hard for the GOP to attack other than around the budget. But they lost their moral latitude on that issue.
they will shout "states rights!" or "federal overreach!".
Looks like Kamala is going all in on increasing public teacher's salaries, but at the tune of 315 billion to the federal government budget. I think pay for teachers is woefully pathetic, but shouldn't this be handled at the state level? It's bailing out the states who have been unwilling to address their own problems and improve the competitive wages to retain high quality teachers. I can understand the desire to step in and improve this because it means improved instruction to our youth, but I'm not sure how I feel about the federal government picking up most of the slack here.
Under Harris’s plan, the average teacher in the U.S. would receive a $13,500 pay raise over four years – for a hefty price tag of $315 billion in federal funding. It would be paid for by making unspecified changes to the estate tax (which is levied on assets, like real estate and cash, when a person dies).
States would then receive incentives for closing the pay gap -- for every $1 a state invests in raising teacher pay, the federal government will provide $3 to fully close the gap within four years, according to Harris’s campaign.
The Department of Education would then work with state education agencies to create a base salary goal for new teachers in every state. States and school districts will increase every teacher’s salary until they meet the goal.
Generally speaking, I agree that this is a state issue, but the reality is that the state's are not dealing with it effectively. It's a travesty that teachers are not paid anywhere near a number that comports with their importance to our society. If the states aren't going to do it, the fed should because it's appalling to me. If you put a gun to me and said... choose between Bernie college or increasing teacher pay (which comes with higher standards at hiring and evaluation), I would go with the latter. I think this is a really good issue for Kamala and one that it will be hard for the GOP to attack other than around the budget. But they lost their moral latitude on that issue.
they will shout "states rights!" or "federal overreach!".
Probably... fuck them though. This is something that I passionately believe is needed. Our best people should be teaching our kids and I don't think that's the case today. Too many people choose other fields because the pay just isn't sufficient. I would have loved to teach history, but never seriously considered it.
It totally proves that all those people who went off about Bernie Sanders' age were full of shit, too.
What do you mean? People who say Biden and Sanders are too old?
I mean that SO many people discounted Sanders because they claimed he was too old - it was a really big part of his story and remained so. But Biden is only one year younger than Sanders, but his age isn't this huge issue like it was with Bernie (I'm talking generally here, not within the confines of this forum).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It totally proves that all those people who went off about Bernie Sanders' age were full of shit, too.
What do you mean? People who say Biden and Sanders are too old?
I mean that SO many people discounted Sanders because they claimed he was too old - it was a really big part of his story and remained so. But Biden is only one year younger than Sanders, but his age isn't this huge issue like it was with Bernie (I'm talking generally here, not within the confines of this forum).
I feel like the conversations have occurred for both candidates, but it appears the actual voters are not as concerned as the media/twitter/talking heads.
It totally proves that all those people who went off about Bernie Sanders' age were full of shit, too.
What do you mean? People who say Biden and Sanders are too old?
I mean that SO many people discounted Sanders because they claimed he was too old - it was a really big part of his story and remained so. But Biden is only one year younger than Sanders, but his age isn't this huge issue like it was with Bernie (I'm talking generally here, not within the confines of this forum).
I feel like the conversations have occurred for both candidates, but it appears the actual voters are not as concerned as the media/twitter/talking heads.
My perception also.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
It totally proves that all those people who went off about Bernie Sanders' age were full of shit, too.
What do you mean? People who say Biden and Sanders are too old?
I mean that SO many people discounted Sanders because they claimed he was too old - it was a really big part of his story and remained so. But Biden is only one year younger than Sanders, but his age isn't this huge issue like it was with Bernie (I'm talking generally here, not within the confines of this forum).
I feel like the conversations have occurred for both candidates, but it appears the actual voters are not as concerned as the media/twitter/talking heads.
My perception also.
Not mine, as I have really only seen it stated by actual people in person and on social media in the comments sections, not by the media itself. I don't know if I've ever happened to see the talking heads or news media say it. But remember folks, Twitter... that is the voters, assuming you're not falling for bots.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The Baffoon just gave the Democrats a gift they need to use those videos about him stating that he would never take pre existing conditions off the table ...
It totally proves that all those people who went off about Bernie Sanders' age were full of shit, too.
What do you mean? People who say Biden and Sanders are too old?
I mean that SO many people discounted Sanders because they claimed he was too old - it was a really big part of his story and remained so. But Biden is only one year younger than Sanders, but his age isn't this huge issue like it was with Bernie (I'm talking generally here, not within the confines of this forum).
I feel like the conversations have occurred for both candidates, but it appears the actual voters are not as concerned as the media/twitter/talking heads.
My perception also.
Not mine, as I have really only seen it stated by actual people in person and on social media in the comments sections, not by the media itself. I don't know if I've ever happened to see the talking heads or news media say it. But remember folks, Twitter... that is the voters, assuming you're not falling for bots.
True...but it's one voter, same as the talking head. I think we are agreeing that age does not seem to be a primary concern for those polled at this point. Good for Bernie and Biden.
Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.
Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?
Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.
Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?
Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.
Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?
Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.
The best and the most likely to win are two different things. As much as it would be fine with me if a Latino or Black woman became president, this next election is critical in terms of getting Trump out. If America is not ready for a woman or minority woman to be president, then so be it for the 2020 election. Get Trump out, then let's go for our first female president. Someone good, of course, and if she's really good, all the better!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.
Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?
Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.
The best and the most likely to win are two different things. As much as it would be fine with me if a Latino or Black woman became president, this next election is critical in terms of getting Trump out. If America is not ready for a woman or minority woman to be president, then so be it for the 2020 election. Get Trump out, then let's go for our first female president. Someone good, of course, and if she's really good, all the better!
Pathetic. So the media has decided that white men are the only ones who can beat Trump, so that is what America is going to believe and do. Screw it if the best option is ignored. No way can a woman and/or minority beat TRUMP. The man who a 12 year old could out-POTUS.
Got it.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.
Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?
Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.
The media didn't decide, they are just reporting the result of a poll.
Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.
Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?
Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.
The media didn't decide, they are just reporting the result of a poll.
I'm speaking in general, not about that one poll. The white men running are getting a massive portion of the media coverage in general, and that is a direct response to what the media reads and what appeals to the masses the most. This isn't some vague conspiracy theory on my part. It's blatant favourtism of the white male candidates, and that is a clear reflection of society as a whole when it comes to attitudes about women and minorities in politics. I see not point in pretending otherwise. That would be willful ignorance IMO.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.
Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?
Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.
The media didn't decide, they are just reporting the result of a poll.
I'm speaking in general, not about that one poll. The white men running are getting a massive portion of the media coverage in general, and that is a direct response to what the media reads and what appeals to the masses the most. This isn't some vague conspiracy theory on my part. It's blatant favourtism of the white male candidates, and that is a clear reflection of society as a whole when it comes to attitudes about women and minorities in politics. I see not point in pretending otherwise. That would be willful ignorance IMO.
Joe’s career in the senate and his 8 years as VP don’t have anything to do with his polling numbers or media coverage?
Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.
Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?
Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.
The media didn't decide, they are just reporting the result of a poll.
I'm speaking in general, not about that one poll. The white men running are getting a massive portion of the media coverage in general, and that is a direct response to what the media reads and what appeals to the masses the most. This isn't some vague conspiracy theory on my part. It's blatant favourtism of the white male candidates, and that is a clear reflection of society as a whole when it comes to attitudes about women and minorities in politics. I see not point in pretending otherwise. That would be willful ignorance IMO.
Joe’s career in the senate and his 8 years as VP don’t have anything to do with his polling numbers or media coverage?
I'm talking the 4 men being featured the way they are vs the 0 women or minorities, not about individuals. Let me be clear: I am NOT suggesting that any of the white men aren't qualified or don't deserve supporters. I actually think they all are and all do. AND SO DO THE FEMALES/MINORITIES. Their experience, their qualifications, their messages, they are ALL arguably worthy of the same admiration and attention for their own merits as well ... yet NONE of them are getting even a fraction of the attention or the public attention, as reflected by the polls. This IS a clear overall reflection of where society stands with women/minorities in politics.
And TBH, it stuns me that so many are willing to act like this isn't the case.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.
Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?
Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.
The media didn't decide, they are just reporting the result of a poll.
I'm speaking in general, not about that one poll. The white men running are getting a massive portion of the media coverage in general, and that is a direct response to what the media reads and what appeals to the masses the most. This isn't some vague conspiracy theory on my part. It's blatant favourtism of the white male candidates, and that is a clear reflection of society as a whole when it comes to attitudes about women and minorities in politics. I see not point in pretending otherwise. That would be willful ignorance IMO.
Honestly, I don't know where you see that. Yes, Beto, Biden and Bernie got attention, but Warren and Harris seem to have had quite a bit as well. All of the second tier candidates have not, and that includes Kloubachar and such, but that's the nature of second tier.
Comments
Under Harris’s plan, the average teacher in the U.S. would receive a $13,500 pay raise over four years – for a hefty price tag of $315 billion in federal funding. It would be paid for by making unspecified changes to the estate tax (which is levied on assets, like real estate and cash, when a person dies).
States would then receive incentives for closing the pay gap -- for every $1 a state invests in raising teacher pay, the federal government will provide $3 to fully close the gap within four years, according to Harris’s campaign.
The Department of Education would then work with state education agencies to create a base salary goal for new teachers in every state. States and school districts will increase every teacher’s salary until they meet the goal.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/kamala-harris-seeks-315b-to-dramatically-raise-teachers-salariesIf you put a gun to me and said... choose between Bernie college or increasing teacher pay (which comes with higher standards at hiring and evaluation), I would go with the latter. I think this is a really good issue for Kamala and one that it will be hard for the GOP to attack other than around the budget. But they lost their moral latitude on that issue.
www.headstonesband.com
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/435809-biden-opens-up-double-digit-lead-over-sanders-in-early-primary-states
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©