I already love her.
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
I’m sure she gets no funding. And now that she is a darling for the crazy fringe left, the dollars will roll on in.
Yep, they try to kill the messenger since they can't address the message on its merits.
Depends on whether Donna Brazile is involved.
Go to Zillow.com and type in Yorktown Heights, NY and look at the houses for sale. "Working class" my *ss. She had a great life and upbringing due to capitalism but rejects it for a repeatedly failed idealogy.
You love her? Of course, you do. She supports things that sound good, but turn the tables on capitalism which has been a bedrock to make our company great. She is an avowed socialist which has destroyed other countries.
According to her:
1) all colleges should have free tuition. That certainly sounds great, but at what cost?
2) wants to forgive all student debt. Nice for those in debt, not really fair for those that paid.
3) the US should have single-payer health care. At what what cost?
4) universal job guarantee ($15/hr minimum). All Americans and illegal immigrants guaranteed a job, again at what cost?
5) pro-Palestine. Okay, that sound horrible, but it plays to leftists and anti-semites.
6) she wants to end illegal immigration enforcement. I am sure that will work well, but base loves it now, even though that hated it when Obama was President
7) supports expanding EITC by $1 trillion. Budget deficits be damned. Okay now she is thinking like a politicians because both parties are good at not worrying about a budget.
8) make it illegal for gun manufactures to pay for lobbying. Not sure how that would be constitutional, but again it sounds good to her base.
9) she wants a “a Wall Street tax”. Presumably to pay for all the free things she wants. Not sure I understand what a Wall Street tax is. Doubt she does either, but plays well with leftists.
According to her:
1) all colleges should have free tuition. That certainly sounds great, but at what cost?
2) wants to forgive all student debt. Nice for those in debt, not really fair for those that paid.
3) the US should have single-payer health care. At what what cost?
4) universal job guarantee ($15/hr minimum). All Americans and illegal immigrants guaranteed a job, again at what cost?
5) pro-Palestine. Okay, that sound horrible, but it plays to leftists and anti-semites.
6) she wants to end illegal immigration enforcement. I am sure that will work well, but base loves it now, even though that hated it when Obama was President
7) supports expanding EITC by $1 trillion. Budget deficits be damned. Okay now she is thinking like a politicians because both parties are good at not worrying about a budget.
8) make it illegal for gun manufactures to pay for lobbying. Not sure how that would be constitutional, but again it sounds good to her base.
9) she wants a “a Wall Street tax”. Presumably to pay for all the free things she wants. Not sure I understand what a Wall Street tax is. Doubt she does either, but plays well with leftists.
Last edited:
They both sound like Mexicans so I’m not sure what they are arguing about.
‘cept Cruz’s tweet is factually accurate ... and hers is not.
Uh huh. Tell me more about the factual basis of Cruz's tweet. You might want to start with Chairman Abernathy and the first Net Neutrality rules - that was 2005 wasn't it?
Or you might start with what Cruz said. The rules FCC Chairman Ajit Pai eliminated were the rules started in 2015. Cruz was correct.
Now tell me more how Comcast paid Cruz $36k for writing that tweet.
So the statement "no regulation" from Cruz is correct? Huh, how about that 2007 spectrum auction. You know the one which included strict Net Neutrality rules?
Is there a different Cruz quote you are referencing because it doesn’t seem to say “no regulation”. And the Cruz quote was clearly about the 2015 rules.
Your definition of strict net neutrality rules (I assume you mean 2008 and not 2007) don’t meet my definition — and I am confident most in the telecom business.
And are you going to help me about Comcast paying $36k for that tweet?
No quite sure it was the 2007 auction. So now we are using your definition rather than the generally accepted definition. Good to know.
A generally accepted definition of 2007/2008 rules were strict? Interesting. Never heard them called that. Ever. By anyone.
I guess I was fortunate I sold my ISP three years before that, otherwise I would of have been forced to abide by strict rules.
I certainly understand you don’t want to address the fact Cruz specifically referred to the 2015 regulations - which were major changes.
Darn, I guess I will never get to learn about the $36k payment. I was going to write my senator and declare an ethics investigation against Cruz.
Not from me, while I enjoyed her come back I am just not invested enough to give much of a damn if her claim is specifically true though it is generally understand the Cruz was in the Comcast top 10 Senate donations in 2016. I would be willing to bet the $36k is accurate.
Translation:
I hate Cruz, he’s a Republican. It doesn’t matter if what is said about him is true or not, as long as it could make him look bad.
Yeah,
Cable 2 Google still scoreless.
The part about not being "invested enough to give much of a damn" was funny though.
Was he paid that money or not? I don't get it, such an easy analysis. He's either shilling for his contributors or he's not.
Just enjoying all the alarm and anxiety over an unknown, young, pretty, articulate lib taking out one of Nancy's crew. Can't figure out why ya'll are so inflamed over her. She's one out of 4 hundred and how many??
I really don't think anybody here is having alarm, anxiety, or inflammation over Dems electing a bonafide DSA socialist. Socialism is going nowhere positive for the Dems. It's just going to get some additional division in the already fractured Democratic party. We both know what that means going into 2020.
So basically, we're all sitting here saying we told you so. We might also be laughing some. OK, we're laughing a bunch.
