RedDenver

That only applies to criminal proceedings. Impeachment is a political process, so if the House drafts articles of impeachment that say "treason", then the trial in the Senate would be over "treason".

I absolutely love the silver serving dishes and the candelabras (lit!) to go with the fast food wrappers and packaging.

I agree Gabbard will have a name recognition problem like Bernie did in the early primaries last time, but I also think Biden will be like Jeb Bush in the last Republican primary - big name going in but quickly fades.

I'm Cutlass South Platte. Or Cutlass Boulder if we're counting creeks instead of rivers.

WTF?!? Hey Graham, the Senate voted 100-0 to fund the budget and not the wall.

Least confident in pass rusher - by far Most confident in QB Also concerned about safety, DL, and OL

Well played, sir.

ICE was created in 2003 by combining several agencies. During her campaign AOC said she wanted to split ICE back up into the agencies that were in place before ICE was created.

Disagreeing with a political party doesn't make Shapiro's arguments stronger, but that's not what the articles are talking about anyway. Plus he's backpedaled on some of those criticisms (see below). And having contradictions over a time isn't the main point of the contradictions article - it's that Shapiro conveniently contradicts himself in favor of his own ideology and in attacking other ideologies. He changes his arguments to fit whatever narrative he's currently pushing. From the second link: Today he says don't call people Nazis. He used to call Obama supporters Nazis. Today says don't call politics of the right fascism. Called Obama's 2012 State of the Union speech fascist. Called Rep. Chris Murphy's call for political activism fascism. (check link for more examples) 2016 claimed conservatives were responsible for Trump. Now says media and the left are responsible for Trump. More in that article where he says don't share fake news (except of course he's done that), don't make ridiculous discrimination claims (guess what he's done?), etc. And if you listen to his podcast, actually check his claims of "studies claim" as he rarely cites the study (and fact-checkers often can't find any such study) or the study he cites doesn't support the conclusion he's drawn.

If we're going to talk about Shapiro, then here's a couple critiques: The Hollow Bravery of Ben Shapiro These facts don’t care about Ben Shapiro’s feelings

Here's some analysis on why the capital gains tax should be raised: https://www.cbpp.org/research/raising-todays-low-capital-gains-tax-rates-could-promote-economic-efficiency-and-fairness

Could also simply make capital gains income get taxed as regular income instead of at lower rates.

As for libertarianism: to me it's just the other side of the coin of communism. Communism takes power away from the evil corporations and gives it to the government in hopes of utopia but seriously underestimates the bad things the government can do with that power. Libertarianism takes power away from the evil government and gives it to the corporations in hopes of utopia but seriously underestimates the bad things the corporations can do with that power. I don't think any single ideology can ever hope to govern a dynamic society. Instead we need a mix of ideas that society can use to adapt over time and not be stuck behind some particular way of doing things.

No, hell no. Read Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea by Mark Blyth to find out why austerity is a terrible idea but keeps coming back over and over. (There's some good youtube videos of presentations he's done on austerity if you'd rather not read the book.)

Jimmy Dore is flirting with the weird conspiratorial left somewhat similar to InfoWars (but not even close to the extreme InfoWars has gone to). EDIT: Dore doesn't have WH press credentials though.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with your point, just some of the details in your examples.

The bolded part made me laugh. Those retread ideas like Medicare-for-All and a Green New Deal. (Yes, I get that you're really referring to her higher top marginal tax rate which is an old idea, but this still struck me as funny.)

Sure, take the rational systemic view instead of arguing the tiny details.

On a slightly different topic: it'll be interesting to see what happens if the government shutdown going into February causes farmers not to get their government checks, especially since these checks will include the tariff boost in payouts. How many will break with Trump and/or the GOP? Or will they somehow allow themselves to believe its the Dems fault?

+1000

I am disagreeing that parents benefit more than the person being educated. However much you think parents benefit from their child being educated, the parent of a person with no kids benefited equally. Your argument basically rests on the idea that education benefits extend from one generation to the next without looking back at the previous generation. Also, you assume that parents will pay for or do their kids' education themselves, but if you look back in history you'll see that only the rich were educated - and that a parent can only educate their children if they themselves are already educated. Yes, it's obvious that society benefits from everyone getting educated. I don't think we're much in disagreement, but I see these arguments that people without kids or whose kids have grown shouldn't have to pay for the next generation to get educated, and it's such nonsense that I can't let it pass.

I see what you're saying from a political selling-point perspective (and I think you're also being somewhat sarcastic), but this just strikes me as a way to get votes but then the farmers turn their backs on those "welfare queens" in the cities. Plus it's giving the middle finger to everyone else. Lots of ways for this to go wrong.

But why would the Dems include farmers and exclude so many others? A Medicare-for-All program helps the farmers too.

No, everyone who got educated by that tax money benefited. The fact I have kids who will also benefit doesn't change that.

Why would she debate Shapiro? That gains her very little and gains Shapiro a lot. Let some of the other politicians debate her in an open forum. No Republican (or establishment Dem for that matter) is going to take that opportunity, that much is certain....and so is the reason why.