Please tell me how we are not already “bailing out” college borrowers, if loans that must be repaid with interest are “bailouts”.
Well the heroine is clearly supposed to be Warren …
I like Mayor Pete, but we have to face facts- a openly gay man cant win in 2020. I hope that changes, and i think it will, maybe by 2028, and then I hope he is still ready to run.
Beto just killed his chances and maybe the chances of any Dem candidate winning. Door to door gun confiscation is exactly the boogie man the thinking Dem candidates have been trying to tell the 70 million gun owners the dems don’t want.
Right–which is why “strict teacher” is a criticism leveled so often at male politicians.
The only thing keeping it from being patently absurd is that it’s true. You’re the only one going on about this, and you’re incredulous that it’s a nothingburger, but you refuse to accept any explanation of why it is, except for some conspiracy theory or something.
This stuff is just NOT that complicated.
The U.S.G. overpaid for paper to keep banks solvent. The banks spent some of the money intended to ensure their solvency on bonuses for the very gamblers and fraudsters who helped cause the crisis in the first place.
If the free market determines that a piece of paper is worth $43, and we buy it for $43, that’s not a “bail-out” — it’s an investment. If we pay $100 for the piece of paper worth $43, that is a “bail-out.”
I don’t know how to help you guys Google this. It’s very basic.
What were they supposed to do with the money that they failed to do? This isn’t a complicated question.
Here ‘they’ means the banks? They did what they did, to nobody’s surprise. Greedy rich bankers are greedy rich bankers. That’s not complicated.
The objection is not to greedy banks doing what greedy banks do. It was to the government funneling taxpayer dollars to feed that greed.
The SNL idea would certainly be entertaining. But the question of Trump’s willingness to stand on a debate stage with particular candidates is interesting. Trump loves bullying others, so he’ll want to do it…but he’s going to have trouble bullying a lot of those folks. I can’t picture most of them cowering before his insults. I worry a bit about Joe, who might clam up (displaying disdain) in the face of Trump’s egregious rudeness. I suspect that disdain isn’t an effective counter to Mr. Nasty.
Meh—too soon to speculate, I guess.
WTF are you on about? I am quite clearly alleging no conspiracy at all. That is, in fact, the entire point of my last two exchanges with you.
Or (quite obvious to everyone but you) they just don’t think it’s a big deal. In order for your narrative to work, every reporter from every newspaper and TV station and blog would have to “quietly avoid drawing attention to things like this.” Do you honestly think *every single one of them *is backing Warren in this way? Really? Really truly?
I don’t know why I’m arguing with you about this. You’ve quite clearly got a screw loose when it comes to your analysis of Warren in this election.
Another sign she is the lead progressive candidate. The Working Families Party endorsed Sanders in 2016 but have now endorsed Warren for 2020. Sanders fans are furious but it’s a sign that his 2016 M.O. of being an outsider from nowhere yelling and berating Wall Street and the millionaires and billionaires isn’t enough now Warren is in who has a better legislative record, able to build relationships and can detail her policy plans beyond aggressive soundbites.
She still has a big problem with black voters and to overtake Biden she has a lot of work to do in that respect. But she is a solid second right now.
Riiiight, no one who didn’t see a debate would find it interesting to read a sentence or two about how the leading candidate on stage got laughed at by the audience and responded by rebuking that audience. Nothing to see here! :rolleyes:
(It’s just “billionaires” now.)
Warren’s rivals are starting to attack her more and more:
That’s so very wrong. Crabs in a bucket.
That is pretty much nothing and the headline is kinda full of crap. You want the most delicate of tea parties it seems, excepting of course criticism of Beto’s gun grab.
No, Lorde is the pure heroine. 
Ah if only we could go back to the good old days of the last set of GOP debates when dick size was the topic du jour
That’s wrong both strategically and as a metaphor.
Strategically, Warren needs to be tested. If she wins the nomination (as I hope), she’ll be going up against one of the most powerfully dishonest political machines humanity has ever designed. We’re talking light years more powerful than North Korea, since NK doesn’t actually need to convince people that they’re right, they just need to convince people to comply. I really want Warren to win, but that’s contingent on her being able to handle herself when the knives come out. Attacks on her, fair or otherwise, are essential.
As a metaphor, the “crabs in a bucket” aren’t trying to gain anything for themselves, they’re just trying to prevent anyone else from succeeding. The Dems attacking her now are doing so either because they want the nomination, or they want their preferred candidate to win it. In a zero sum game, attacks are strategically valid.
Attack the issue, not the *person. *
As shown in 2016, enough attacks and the electorate will decide “What the hell both sides are bad”.