Schiff doesn't go far enough though. You not only need to look at the tax code but you have to look at the spread of people's pretax market income and how that interacts tax code.

I suspect Schiff knows this because a lot of libertarian anti tax accounts have been talking about how these high tax states receive so much of their money from high earners so they better not do anything to spook them like tax them more.

But of course that's happening because pretax income is shifting upwards with the 1% receiving more relative income than they did before

The more establishment Democrats try to derail Mayor Pete, the more I like him.

Watched the Bernie FNC town hall. He was good. It's sad and wrong and completely unfair to the rest of the field but there are so many dumb people in swing states who will vote for Bernie because he's an old normal looking white guy. And he's probably option 1 or 1a on policy.

The party will try to rig it against Bernie, but I increasingly don't see how they will succeed. Biden is going to flame out Jeb style; who is their horse when that happens? Field is too fragmented.

Kamala and her team are very smart. I think she's a very good buy.

She def seems to be laying relatively low for now. Not sure if that's intentional on the part of her campaign, or if the media just hasn't gotten around to pumping her yet.

I know very little about her but she does look good on paper.

I hate the fact that half the Dem field made their bones throwing black kids in prison.

I'd love California/San Francisco (city tax not currently allowed by state law) to jack up the rates and just dare them to leave. And if they did leave that would be ****ing great.

blah blah blah politics....who is the most woke guys? The best woke will take the 2020 vote

yikes, NOT WOKE! He needs to check his white privilege.

Is Kanye West still trying to run in 2020? lol

I've taken the liberty of moving the meta conversation to a different thread. Sorry if this annoys anyone too much.

If I’m pete buttigieg when I’m debating trump I have this line in my back pocket : “I went to Harvard based on my scholars.. trump went to Wharton on his fathers dollars. “ also I’m sure there’s something that rhymes with naval officer and bone spurs

No dice, Trump just hits him back with "Harvard students are employees, Wharton grads are employers" and "I prefer vets that aren't short and gay."

I watched the Bernie and Mayor Pete town halls on CNN. It's interesting that Mayor Pete has gotten so much traction based on so little policy. I'm a fan of the guy, but I even have to ask myself exactly why that is. He is a great speaker, always seems to have a solid answer... but he doesn't actually say very much of substance when you break it down. Like if I try to analyze why the guy has gotten so popular so fast, it's hard for me to figure out.

I'm not a Bernie fan but at least you get the impression he always says what he means and means what he says. Saying the Boston marathon bomber should have the right to vote is probably not the most politically expedient answer - but it shows that Bernie does not change his principles based on how something he says might play in the media. I respect him for that.

I understand you're not a Bernie fan so this isn't really aimed at you, but unless I'm mistaken (which is entirely possible), Bernie has yet to declare his support for ending the filibuster, which means whatever policy goals or principles he has mean absolutely nothing should he be elected.

Bernie declaring his support for ending the filibuster doesn't make the filibuster go away. That is a Senate rule, and President Sanders doesn't have a vote in the Senate. In fact, I would say that Bernie getting elected makes it less likely that the filibuster goes away, regardless of his own views on the matter. His policy proposals tend to be less broadly accepted among center-left and centrist Democratic Senators than those of other candidates and they would rather the filibuster block his legislation than have to vote against it themselves.

Notice that President Trump also wants to end the filibuster, but McConnell has kept it in place. You think that is because McConnell cares about preserving Senate norms?

Thank you for the civics lesson. I certainly wasn't aware of that when I posted.

Then why do you think not stating a pointless opposition to the filibuster makes Bernie's policy goals or principles mean absolutely nothing?

I thought it might be obvious by my posting, but because I don't think the opposition is pointless?

To be more precise, I think a Democratic President in favor of ending the filibuster will help to end it, assuming Democratic control of the Senate obviously. Your example of Trump is awful because people who work directly under Trump disregard his orders, let alone the Turtle who doesn't even answer to Trump.

Meh. First, it is really hard to get voters to care about procedural issues like this. Insofar as they do, they often tend to be conservative about rules, viewing changing them as unfair in some way. So I don't see much change happening from the bully pulpit here.

Second, I don't see Bernie Sanders being elected president motivating centrist and center-left Senators to get rid of the filibuster - if anything the opposite. Diane Feinstein doesn't want to vote against Bernie's Medicare for All, but she also doesn't want it to pass. The filibuster allows her to thread this needle. Bernie publicly supporting getting rid of the filibuster in order to pass his policy platform will only make her and other Senators like her more supportive of the filibuster.

So to some extent I agree with your point that policies like Medicare for All aren't really serious proposals without getting rid of the filibuster - I just think it points to the conclusion that most of Bernie's ambitious policies are DOA, not that he should add another DOA policy like getting rid of the filibuster in order to be serious. Many of his supporters understand this, which is why they argue that running on a maximalist policy platform is smart because it sets the opening in legislative negotiation on a more leftward note. I don't agree with this model of how to pass legislation, but I don't think it means they aren't serious about policy.

Because it sucks when consequence attaches to criminal conduct...well, apparently now excluding areas like Dallas which is on a race to be as crappy as the Left Coast by declaring that they were not going to prosecute most criminal trespass cases and thefts under the amount of $750.00.

Always amazing how so many on the left overlook the fact that white people get arrested and go to prison as well...

lol

A large percentage of those in prison have not been convicted of a crime. Locking people up for minor, non violent offenses is inhumane and reductive.

In the United States, you do not go to PRISON without a conviction. In a VERY RARE exception, you MIGHT see a Hartsfield scenario where a sentence gets vacated at the same time as a commutation occurs and someone remains in legal limbo, but I can think of fewer of those incidents than I have fingers on one hand AND have fingers left over.

Arresting people for committing crimes is NOT inhumane. Don't want to go to jail, then don't commit a crime. It is NOT that difficult to avoid arrest. Nobody forces someone to be carrying an illegal substance or to commit property crimes.

But I guess you ALSO don't think that there are problems with catch and release practices that result in harm almost as soon as a release to a low bond has occurred (such as we saw in Harris County last week after a 17yo thug who shot at a cop got released and then promptly turned around to commit yet more violent offenses). Despite the 'no firearms condition' of his pre-trial supervision, he STILL chose to engage in at least four separate instances of Aggravated Robbery with a Deadly Weapon last week. Fortunately he is being held without bond NOW. You can review the facts of the Daniel Hoskins case at your leisure...