GnauzBookOfRhymes
Superstar
TAKE THIS MFER AWAY PLEASE.
If I knew how to do it, Id make a gif of warrren punching the fuk out of him right before he falls back
2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races
- Thread starter mc_brew
- Start date
TAKE THIS MFER AWAY PLEASE.
If I knew how to do it, Id make a gif of warrren punching the fuk out of him right before he falls back
the next guy
Superstar
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
I usually fukk with Krystal but this made me roll my eyes heavy. She seems to be forwarding this ahistorical narrative - commonly deployed by Bernie's most zealous fans - of what actually happened both behind the scenes and in the public during the Obama administration in order to disparage Liz and pump up Bernie. Anyone who knows anything about that era knows that there was one Democratic Senator who was a consistent thorn in the Obama Administration's side, and it wasn't Bernie Sanders. It was Elizabeth Warren. She jumped in the trenches, fought more fights, and won more battles than anyone else, while Bernie was relatively absent during that entire period. So Krystal saying Liz is the natural heir to Obama is an almost disqualifying display of historical ignorance. She even listed all the financial ghouls (Paulson, Bernanke, Cohn, Summers and I was WAITING on them to say Geithner before I blew my top but they couldn't remember him name) and how it's questionable whether or not Warren is beholden to that system, which is like...that that's even a question is utterly absurd.
Bernie has consistently held morally righteous positions, but he does not have as strong a track record of actually creating progressive change as Liz does. She did more than him to actually wield the levers of power in Washington to progressive ends, and she entered the game far later than he did. So if Elizabeth Warren doesn't have the spine and ability to "do what it takes to get it done", I see absolutely no evidence that Bernie does. There are good reasons to support him over Liz, but if you have to resort to lying on her record or manipulating history in order to make your case, it's not a strong one.
Krystal also makes an argument that I commonly see that "well, rich people are supporting her more than Bernie, so she must be an establishment shill and I'm with Bernie" and that also doesn't pass muster to me. Identification of enemies of progress is a good and necessary thing, but letting them drive the direction of your beliefs and support is dangerous and foolish. The ire of the wealthy is a useful heuristic but only in limited circumstances. It can't possibly be the driving force for a progressive movement. You have to play your game, can't let them dictate it. If Bezos starts donating to Bernie tomorrow does that mean we ditch him on mass?
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
HE NEEDS TO GO. NOW.
the next guy
Superstar
Yang Gang not happy Bernie ain’t talking UBI
the next guy
Superstar
Last edited:
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
Eh, I ride heavy with her stances on imperialism and the military industrial complex, but she has some odd positions and a strange coalition of supporters, and as such I don't consider her to be a serious candidate. I view her like a view Mike Gravel.
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
I agree with all of this. I will also say there’s a lot of people who feel betrayed by Obama because they didn’t pay attention to his record and his donors at the time.
I would say that she did more given the CFB but that also had to do with expertise and being appointed as opposed to doing it through the senate. She talked the talk more antagonizing her former boss on the financial industry but to say she did more when Sanders entered Congress during the Newt Gingrich era and then the Bush era is a bit unfair.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8-11e9-9986-1fb3e4397be4_story.html?tid=sm_tw
Elizabeth Warren: Here’s how we get broadband Internet to rural America
Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate and is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Federal Communications Commission reports that a staggering 21.3 million Americans don’t have access to high-speed broadband — no doubt an underestimate given the notorious loopholes in FCC reporting requirements. This is despite more than a decade of efforts by policymakers at the state and federal level to end the “digital divide” and deliver universal access to high-speed Internet.
This isn’t an accident. Blame Internet service providers (ISPs), such as Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and Charter, which have maximized their profits at the expense of rural towns, cities, low-income communities and communities of color across the country.
These companies have deliberately restricted competition, kept prices high and used their armies of lobbyists to persuade state legislatures to ban towns and cities from building their own public networks. Meanwhile, the federal government has shoveled more than a billion in taxpayer dollars per year to private ISPs to expand broadband to remote areas, but these providers have done the bare minimum with these resources.
ISPs have been able to get away with fostering pseudo-monopolies because they spend a lot of money to keep the regulatory environment and the conversation surrounding it murky. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, has been an effective agent for ISPs. He led the charge to dismantle net neutrality last year, and he has done everything in his power to stop municipalities from building their own broadband infrastructure. He also attempted to gut the FCC’s Lifeline program, one of the few tools the federal government has to provide Internet to low-income consumers.
While the profit motives of ISPs have disproportionately harmed rural and low-income communities, urban and higher-income consumers have been adversely impacted, too.
[Naomi Schaefer Riley: The real digital divide isn’t about access to the Internet]
Horror stories starring giant Internet companies are practically universal. In the wealthiest country on the planet, we lag behind many other developed nations in connectivity and speed, while also paying more for that service. That’s why companies such as Comcast consistently rank as the United States’ most hatedcompanies by consumers. When you eliminate a competitive market and replace it with regional monopolies or duopolies, providers have no incentive to improve their service.
In those rural communities where ISPs have delivered Internet access, consumers pay egregiously high rates for services that are far below the FCC’s own definition of high-speed Internet. And if they go over their allotted data, they get hit with additional charges.
Without a stable, high-speed Internet connection, it’s virtually impossible for a town to keep or recruit new businesses. Not having broadband at home creates a “homework gap” that makes it much harder for students to compete. For rural and low-income communities, lawmakers have prioritized increased funding for telemedicine as a way to lower health-care costs and reach isolated communities. But again, that isn’t an option without good Internet.
Enough is enough. As president, I would work to ensure every home in the United States has an affordable, broadband connection. I have a plan for a new public option for broadband Internet, carried out by a new Office of Broadband Access that would manage an $85 billion federal grant program. Only electricity and telephone cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, tribes, cities, counties and other state subdivisions would be eligible for grants.
[Elizabeth Warren: Corporate executives must face jail time for overseeing massive scams]
The federal government would pay 90 cents on the dollar for construction under these grants. In exchange, applicants must offer high-speed public broadband directly to every home in their application area. Applicants would have to offer at least one plan with 100 megabits per second speeds and one discount Internet plan for low-income customers with a prepaid feature or a low monthly rate. The plan will also set aside $5 billion specifically for 100 percent federal grants to tribal nations to expand broadband access on Native American land.
Additionally, we would make it clear in federal statute that municipalities have the right to build their own networks, and I would appoint FCC commissioners who would restore net neutrality and make sure our government programs live up to the promise of universal service. We would also prohibit the range of sneaky maneuvers that giant private providers use to unfairly squeeze out competition, hold governments hostage and drive up prices.
There is both a moral and an economic imperative to enact a public option for broadband. If we stay on our current trajectory, ISPs will continue to decide which communities succeed and which ones fail. We imperil the success of future generations, threaten our competitiveness on the global stage and risk further diaspora from towns and cities that are in dire need of economic turnaround.
Providing universal, public access to broadband won’t be easy. The ISPs aren’t interested in competition and will fight to keep the status quo. But this is a worthy cause. Together we can change outcomes for forgotten towns and cities across our country.
@wire28 @Return to Forever @ezrathegreat @Jello Biafra @humble forever @Darth Nubian @Dameon Farrow @Piff Perkins @BigMoneyGrip @Lucky_Lefty @johnedwarduado @Armchair Militant @panopticon @88m3 @Tres Leches
