Jump to content

NM11046

Donor
  • Content Count

    6,046
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

NM11046 last won the day on March 22

NM11046 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,532 Excellent

About NM11046

  • Rank
    All Conference

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

7,698 profile views
  1. I'm so jaded - everybody is saying the "dam is breaking" with the McKinley testimony. I just don't know anymore. I am happy to hear that the gal today was there more than 10 hours, that shows me there was at least some content.
  2. Yes. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261 https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460231-tulsi-gabbard-on-online-russian-support-they-agree-its-better-when-were-not https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tulsi-gabbard-russia-syria-skripal-mh17-douma-airstrikes-a9040536.html https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/media-tulsi-is-new-darling-of-russias-propaganda-machine/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-russians-rooting-for-trump-are-loving-the-democratic-party-debates
  3. Agreed - my issue with with people locking in on the negatives without considering the acknowledgement or explanation or apology for what was said or done. I'm fine with things coming out now and they should- but take everything in prior to making a decision. Just considering the action without the explanation is troubling to me. And we should acknowledge that this is being driving in a large part by groups outside of the democratic party. Russias involvement in pro-Gabbard initiatives for instance is significant. People need to continue to do their own research and fact finding and not get caught up in the accusations. without merit.
  4. He's not working to hard at distancing himself - I read that he had lunch with him in VA at the golf course today.
  5. Not at anyone in particular - Danny said it well above. I will support whomever the party nominates and we're all entitled to our own vote in the primary. I'm just frustrated that the current environment has us all beating down on the very people we may be voting for - how can that generate anything positive? I'm all for choosing to vote for someone because you like their policies or agree with their philosophy or history - I HATE the fact that people are talking about choosing their candidate based on who they don't want to vote for. That's how we got here. The "I won't vote for Hillary so I'll vote Stein, or Trump or won't vote at all". And really hate that it's based on stuff that happened so long ago when their is evidence of acknowledgement and change. The negativity and beating each other up only helps the GOP and Trump. For the same reason I'd reconsider my thoughts about Gabbards policy if she admitted her trip to visit Assad was a mistake and detail why and what she thinks now. And the same reason Pete gained more support from me because he admitted the police shooting in South Bend was a reflection on him not doing enough and the need for him to do more. I respect people who admit evolution in their thinking - I want people to reflect on actions and reactions and choose responsible people who aren't afraid of admitting they made a mistake. I don't look at every change in opinion as a flip flop. Now Kamala saying she was MFA one evening and then changing that the next day due to polling was a political move, a flip flop and it has impacted my opinion of her candidacy. I'm crabby. I just wish we'd spend the energy fighting the mess that is currently living in the WH instead of tearing down each other.
  6. I was confused by the post, the date in the tweet is recent but the actual video is from 2011 when she ran for senate here in MA. And the native american heritage claims were from the 1980's. So I know nobody supposedly cares about when it was said, but it's misleading. Because things have changed. Because she has thought about it, and has apologized, and has set up initiatives for her administration if elected. She was all over meeting with tribes just months ago, many of whom have gotten over this bs - quotes from real native americans with whom she has met say they don't understand why people can't admit to making a mistake and apologizing and move on. I am sick of people who are supposedly not a fan of the current administration falling for the same flagrant Buzzfeed take down politics that got us where we are today. If you can't see through the divisive bs being put out by others and eaten up by those around us we're in for another 4 years of this administration or one worse. Times change, opinions change, people change. And good people can acknowledge mistakes and errors and apologize. Honestly, people pulling clips from 2011 and saying that it impacts their vote without looking at comments and actions that same person has taken in the last 8-10 years is just ignorant. It makes me scared for 2020 instead of hopeful. Have we really learned so little? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-elizabeth-warren-proposes-plan-to-aid-native-american-communities/2019/08/16/8a4490e8-bf9e-11e9-9b73-fd3c65ef8f9c_story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-19/elizabeth-warren-native-american-dna-apology https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-warren/democratic-hopeful-warren-apologizes-for-native-american-ancestry-claims-idUSKCN1V91QY
  7. Oh yeah, those poor, white, christian men are always getting picked on and persecuted. The only ones speaking up about this one off are those who have an issue with the topic. John Ziegler being a prime example.
  8. This is an excellent chart - I'm guessing folks lock in on total tax paid though, and don't realize that 2.3% vs 12.3% is insane for consumption tax (and similarly for payroll tax)
  9. Travllers deciding not to pay out happened after she was gone. My understanding of this case was that her hours were spent putting together a trust in order to pay current and future victims. She was a consultant for Travellers, but it wasn't to try and help them avoid paying, it was to do so fairly so that there was money to pay out - and not just on the current situations, but for those that may come up in the future. She may vacilate but I wouldn't say this is an example of that.
  10. Right? I mean, even the best of us, who have led pretty normal, boring lives would have things that would look sketchy if every move we've made in the last 20-30 years was analyzed. Past behavior is indicative of future behavior, but I think you have to look at things in bulk. One client who took actions after you were done with the case doesn't outweigh multiple clients that you fought for that aligned with your beliefs, or the students you taught or the battles you've chosen in the political arena. She may or may not get my vote, but it won't lose it because of one case 10+ years ago.
  11. And here is a better review of her legal experience outside of teaching and some additional info on the Travellers - it's worth a read, the Globe article seems slanted, which is disappointed as usually they are pretty good. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/while-teaching-elizabeth-warren-worked-on-more-than-50-legal-matters-charging-as-much-as-675-an-hour/2019/05/22/9ce56840-7ce0-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html#comments-wrapper
  12. Did you actually read the article? It was from 2012 and the actual Travellers case was in 2009 and before. I'm not stupid enough to think that each candidate doesn't have some unsavory career records - but one case more than 10 years ago vs. what she's done before and since would not be a factor that would impact my vote.
×
×
  • Create New...