I agree. I think that the best thing Hillary could have done in her debates with Trump would be to force him to answer policy questions. He had no efing clue then and still does not. That would be a bad look in the 2020 debates. All of that executive time and four year of training, yet he has no idea how anything works.
today's NY Times: "Ms. Warren also said she supported reparations for black Americans impacted by slavery — a policy that experts say could cost several trillion dollars, and one that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and many top Democrats have not supported. "The Warren campaign declined to give further details on that backing, but it came amid her calls for the federal government to provide special home-buying assistance to residents of communities that were adversely affected by 'redlining,' the discriminatory practice of denying mortgages, usually in poor and nonwhite areas. She also announced a sweeping universal child-care proposal that could strongly benefit minority communities that often have limited early childhood services." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/us/politics/2020-democrats-race-policy.html
Warren pledges not to have dinner with wealthy donors as CNN reports "Sen. Elizabeth Warren is laying down a new rule for her presidential campaign: No fundraisers, dinners, receptions or phone calls with wealthy donors." James Joyner comments at Outside the Beltway: In the world of sports journalism, there’s an absurd game every year with regard to free agent players and, especially, in-demand coaches: reporters will ask if the player/coach is interested in team such-and-such. The player/coach will vow that they have had no discussions with team such-and-such. Eventually, said player/coach will land with one of the team such-and-suches that they denied having had discussions with. How? Well, it turns out that their agent, not them, had those discussions. I strongly suspect Warren is playing that game here. I take her at her word that she’ll not be going to fundraising dinners or taking PAC money during the primaries. But I’m guessing that their will nonetheless be fundraising dinners for Warren. And maybe she’ll also eschew personally making phone calls to wealthy donors. But note that she hasn’t said she’ll reject donations from wealthy donors. One strongly suspects someone on her campaign will be making the calls, not her. Further, if she winds up the nominee and starts rubbing elbows with plutocrats from May to November of 2020, it’s not obvious how having refrained from doing so from February 2019 through April 2020 will change the equation. Again, Warren is pointing to a legitimate problem. And there’s some shrewdness in a relatively well-known candidate announcing restrictions that would be easier for her to live with than most of her primary opponents. But it’s not obvious that she’s proposing anything that would actually remediate the problem to which she’s pointing. https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/elizabeth-warren-pledges-something-something-wealthy-donors
James Woods?? The actor?? This guy tried to sue a random Twitter user for $10 million because he said Woods was a Cocaine Addict. When he found out later the tweeter had died, Woods said he hoped he died in agony. Less than two years later Woods’ own account was blocked for falsely spreading information. He claimed On Twitter that’s Soros was behind Charlottesville. And other obviously false stuff. In short... he’s not smart (or dumb). He’s just like everyone else... trying to stay relevant and earn a paycheck.
I think James Woods is too dumb to know what subject matters belong to science and what subjects belong to social science. Gender issues is a sociology issue. Physical sex is biological sciences. Why does he care so much about such a trivial issue to him who probably never had to deal with a transgender individual in his entire life?
Societal issues are not trivial to James Woods. James Woods and Cohete Rojo care. For instance, some argue that gender identity is a "human right". I say total crock-of-****. People who pedal that rhetoric are dangerous. Such an idea means that sex-change operations are a "human right". Ultimately, it means that organ donors could one day have their genitalia removed from their dead body in order for someone to fulfill their "human right". Yuck!
Of all the crap to worry about in the world... this is what you are worried about? A dead organ donor possibly losing their genitalia?
You are really bizarre. If you are in your late 20's or early 30's, I strongly suggest you consult with a mental health professional. You have some the signs of schizophrenia.
Like Kamala Harris' policy proposals, I haven't seen anything from Warren that qualifies as 'reparations.' Financing assistance isn't reparations. Universal childcare isn't reparations. Either the candidates or the journalists or both are abusing that word. On the subject, I believe in our public policy, we need to take affirmative actions to close the racial wealth gap. We've used public policy to widen it for centuries, so I'm confident different policy can help it move the other way. Home-buying assistance would help do that, though they should be careful about implementation because distortions of the market like this can backfire if you don't do it right. So I'm not particularly scared off by some boogieman word. I think she's thinking about how to fix some of the big social ills that I think need fixing -- institutional racism, widening economic disparity, and resolving the impact of digitization and mechanization on the working class.
while there's no concrete policy proposal(s) from either candidate, their remarks have each been interpreted as being generally favorable to the idea of "reparations." Washington Post reporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d3f2a1e599f9
Addressing economic disparity through corporate regulations and giving a little more to the worker IS the only real answer here - and Warren is as close to an expert as you can get on it.
Actual quotes from her: “I think it’s an important part of the conversation.” “I fully support the federal government doing far more to live up to its existing trust and treaty responsibilities and that includes a robust discussion about historical injustices against Native people. They deserve a seat at the table in all decisions that will affect the well-being of their people and their communities.” “America has an ugly history of racism. We need to confront it head-on. And we need to talk about the right way to address it and make change." “I have a housing bill that talks about more recent forms of discrimination which we also need to address head-on.” What's the problem again?
