2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Shrillland]

No, but it does mean we should keep a sense of perspective. Someone who's a dick to their staff can still be good for the country if they're fighting against committing war crimes or separating families or fighting for working people.

She’s going to fight for the workers while treating her own like shit? That’s hypocrisy right there, and not the usual “changed my position on an issue” hypocrisy, actual, dictionary definition hypocrisy. Really makes it hard for me to support her on that issue, especially when there are better options available.

Well, it's only February. We'll see how it goes.

[Hediacrana]

She does seem interesting; just read she was behind the "anti-freemarket" plot of mandating the hospitals had to keep women in for 48 hours after birth.

I'd be very interested to read that, if you'd be willing to share a link.

[The Black Forrest]

She does seem interesting; just read she was behind the "anti-freemarket" plot of mandating the hospitals had to keep women in for 48 hours after birth.

I'd be very interested to read that, if you'd be willing to share a link.

I can't seem to locate the article as everything coming up is about her announcement and mentions the event....

http://www.startribune.com/eight-things ... 505579901/

If I find it......

[Confederate States of German America]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and team attempt damage control after a fumbled Green New Deal rollout that included a line about paying Americans 'unwilling to work'

A line on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's website supporting "economic security to all those who are unable or unwilling to work" triggered backlash this week and prompted mixed messages from her team about where the line came from, and whether it was ever intended to be part of the landmark Green New Deal policy package.

The controversy has given fodder to critics of the Green New Deal legislation, which was unveiled Thursday.

Though the actual Green New Deal legislation introduced to the House of Representatives contains no mention of guaranteeing economic security to those "unwilling to work," the phrase was included on Ocasio-Cortez's website in a Frequently Asked Questions page that has since been removed from the site.

The page was also sent to reporters, including NPR, which published the document, and the Washington Post.

Intense criticism ensued, and some of Ocasio-Cortez's staffers and advisers attempted to walk back the "unwilling to work" line.

First, one of her surrogates said the document was "doctored" and circulated by Republicans, then her chief of staff said the line was from a draft that was never intended for publication.

In a tweet on Saturday evening, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, explained that the line was written with specific recipients in mind, such as retirees.

"We were essentially thinking about pensions and retirement security," he said. "E.g. economic security for a coal miner who has given 40 years of their life to building the energy infra of this country, but who may be not be willing to switch this late in his career."

Robert Hockett, a Cornell University law professor and adviser to Ocasio-Cortez, was asked by Fox News' Tucker Carlson why Americans should pay those who are unwilling to work.

"We never would, right? And AOC has never said anything like that" Hockett answered. "I think you're referring to some sort of document — I think some sort of doctored document that somebody other than us has been circulating."

He continued: "It seems that apparently some Republicans have put it out there."

Though Carlson appeared to accept the answer, Ocasio-Cortez's website did indeed contain the line, as an archived version of the webpage shows.

A Media Matters for America researcher, Andrew Lawrence, tweeted out the clip and praised Hockett for debunking "conservative media lies." However, the "unwilling to work" line was indeed on Ocasio-Cortez's website for a time and was not the product of conservative media.

Ocasio-Cortez retweeted Lawrence's post, and it remained on her timeline as of Saturday night.

Hockett on Saturday rejected the idea that he was mistaken during his interview with Carlson, and attempted to put the attention back to the text of the bill formally submitted to Congress.

"I have said that we appear to have been referring to different documents, as it turns out there were multiple documents being discussed yesterday with no one person having a handle on them all," he tweeted. "Might we now discuss the Resolution?"

Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti, also took to Twitter on Saturday afternoon to address the controversy, arguing that people should focus on the legislation, and not the since-deleted webpage.

Both argued that there was indeed at least one doctored version of the FAQ, but that the authentic page on Ocasio-Cortez's website was published "by mistake" after a lengthy brainstorming and drafting process.

"We did this in collaboration with a bunch of groups and offices over the course of the last month. As a part of that process, there were multiple iterations, brainstorming docs, FAQs, etc. that we shared. Some of these early drafts got leaked," Chakrabarti tweeted.

He continued: "There separately IS a doctored FAQ floating around. And an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn't represent the GND resolution got published to the website by mistake (idea was to wait for launch, monitor q's, and rewrite that FAQ before publishing)."

He finished by noting that "mistakes happen," and that the text of the legislation accurately represents the Green New Deal.

Ocasio-Cortez, too, tweeted that there were "multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around," as well as "a draft version that got uploaded + taken down."

"Point is, the real one is our submitted resolution, H.Res. 109," she said, adding, "When I talk about the GND, this is what I'm referring to - nothing else."

[Valrifell]

I understand this is a threadjack that I had previously participated in, so I look like a hypocrite, buuuuuuut

Relevance?

[Hediacrana]

I'd be very interested to read that, if you'd be willing to share a link.

I can't seem to locate the article as everything coming up is about her announcement and mentions the event....

http://www.startribune.com/eight-things ... 505579901/

If I find it......

Thank you, I appreciate that!

From that article:

'Klobuchar says she got her start in politics after the birth of her daughter: In 1995, Klobuchar’s daughter was born during a brief period when health insurance plans allowed new mothers only a 24-hour hospital stay. Even though it was clear that Abigail had a problem nursing due to a condition that prevented her from swallowing, Klobuchar had to leave the hospital while Abigail stayed behind. The next legislative session, Klobuchar testified in favor of a proposed law to force health plans to allow new mothers to stay in the hospital for 48 hours. When insurance lobbyists tried to delay the law, she packed the hearing with pregnant women and their children. The proposal passed in Minnesota and President Bill Clinton signed a similar measure into federal law in 1996.'

This, to me, is a huge deal. I became a parent relatively recently, and I cannot stress how importance good aftercare is post-birth, for mother and child. Pretty much the only thing I knew about Klobuchar was that she's a moderate Democrat, which made her less interesting to me than some of her competitors; but this story makes me much more likely to root for her.

[Hakons]

I understand this is a threadjack that I had previously participated in, so I look like a hypocrite, buuuuuuut

Relevance?

Like the midterm election thread, this is pretty much an American politics thread. Also, considering how many candidates rushed to endorse the Green New Deal, stuff related to it seems pretty relevant.

[Valrifell]

I understand this is a threadjack that I had previously participated in, so I look like a hypocrite, buuuuuuut

Relevance?

Like the midterm election thread, this is pretty much an American politics thread. Also, considering how many candidates rushed to endorse the Green New Deal, stuff related to it seems pretty relevant.

We can't have three American politics threads for general use, that's just absurd.

While I'd agree that the policies mentioned are relevant since they're (technically) part of candidates' platform if they've voiced support.

A typo/misstep/mistake on AOC's website is not that.

[Confederate States of German America]

I understand this is a threadjack that I had previously participated in, so I look like a hypocrite, buuuuuuut

Relevance?

Given how many of the Dems candidates have rushed to endorse the "Green New Deal", what it actually means is rather relevant, especially with regards to the electorate.

[Valrifell]

I understand this is a threadjack that I had previously participated in, so I look like a hypocrite, buuuuuuut

Relevance?

Given how many of the Dems candidates have rushed to endorse the "Green New Deal", what it actually means is rather relevant, especially with regards to the electorate.

I don't think a typo on AOC's website effects the resolution currently in the House, though.

[Confederate States of German America]

Given how many of the Dems candidates have rushed to endorse the "Green New Deal", what it actually means is rather relevant, especially with regards to the electorate.

I don't think a typo on AOC's website effects the resolution currently in the House, though.

As they said, it wasn't a typo but that's besides the point. The Resolution in the House is an endorsement of what is outlined in her policy papers, which her website reflects.

[Hakons]

Given how many of the Dems candidates have rushed to endorse the "Green New Deal", what it actually means is rather relevant, especially with regards to the electorate.

I don't think a typo on AOC's website effects the resolution currently in the House, though.

Ah yes, the "typo" that was sent to NPR by her office. Of course, this "typo" silliness is already a backtrack from her claiming that it was part of a right-wing conspiracy that made a fake version of the GND.

[Valrifell]

Either way, I don't think this is as big of a gotcha as you may think it is.

[Hakons]

Either way, I don't think this is as big of a gotcha as you may think it is.

Well, I suppose we could focus on the anti-semetic antics of a different freshman Democratic congresswoman, but that is even less related to the presidential race unfortunately.

[Shrillland]

Either way, I don't think this is as big of a gotcha as you may think it is.

Well, I suppose we could focus on the anti-semetic antics of a different freshman Democratic congresswoman, but that is even less related to the presidential race unfortunately.

Let's not. There's nothing that causes the piranhas of NSG to go into a feeding frenzy so much as the I word.

[Confederate States of German America]

Either way, I don't think this is as big of a gotcha as you may think it is.

It's literally a confirmation of a "Welfare Queen" stereotype the Neoliberal Right has long since used in the United States.

[Cannot think of a name]

Either way, I don't think this is as big of a gotcha as you may think it is.

It's literally a confirmation of a "Welfare Queen" stereotype the Neoliberal Right has long since used in the United States.

Eeeeeehhhhh...

[Hediacrana]

I can't seem to locate the article as everything coming up is about her announcement and mentions the event....

http://www.startribune.com/eight-things ... 505579901/

If I find it......

I did some more digging and found a 2010 piece on Klobuchar that deals a little more extensively with this story. Here is the relevant passage, in Klobuchar's own words:

Amy's only child was born with a condition that kept her from being able to swallow. For three years she had to be fed through a stomach tube. But 24 hours after she was born, "they threw me out of the hospital, which is horrible even if your baby's not sick," Amy recalls, sipping a glass of chardonnay with a group of women after the Eastcliff speech. That was when she, then "just" a working mom, albeit a corporate lawyer mom, used her lawyer contacts to get an audience before the state legislature and successfully lobbied Minnesota to pass one of the first laws in the country guaranteeing new moms and their babies a 48-hour hospital stay.

Her first foray into governance was quite a success: President Clinton later made it a federal law. "I had to go and testify about things like your water breaking," she says, "so I told them very detailed things to make them feel squeamish so they'd pass the bill the right way." But the best part, Amy says with relish, was "when some lobbyists wanted to delay the time until the bill took effect." So she took six of her "closest pregnant friends" with her to appear before the legislature. "When they asked when this bill should take effect, all my pregnant friends raised their hands and said, `Now.' " Of course, it worked.

Again, ideologically speaking I'm not very likely get exited about a centrist Democrat's campaign, but as someone whose own child was born relatively recently, this is powerful stuff to me and definitely makes me root for her more.

Edit: forgot the link.

[Davinhia]

Still going with Tulsi

Just waiting for Bernie to announce

[Toshavo III]

So... Amy Klobuchar... what about that huh?

[Farnhamia]

So... Amy Klobuchar... what about that huh?

We'll see.

[Toshavo III]

So... Amy Klobuchar... what about that huh?

We'll see.

I don't know everytime someone throws their hat into the race, Trump is just closer to winning reelection lets face it.

Hey I'm just waiting til Bernie announces. I've already pitched in my $27

[Longweather]

Still going with Tulsi

Just waiting for Bernie to announce

Same. I would be sad though when he's in the race though. I'd like him to be a bro and endorse Gabbard's like she did for him in 2016.

[Farnhamia]

Still going with Tulsi

Just waiting for Bernie to announce

Same. I would be sad though when he's in the race though. I'd like him to be a bro and endorse Gabbard's like she did for him in 2016.

Well ... I don't personally find Bernie appealing at all. I think he feels he's owed something from the Democrats after they didn't nominate him and got snookered by Trump. Like I said, we'll see.

[Ngelmish]

Still going with Tulsi

Just waiting for Bernie to announce

Same. I would be sad though when he's in the race though. I'd like him to be a bro and endorse Gabbard's like she did for him in 2016.

You mean he should wait to endorse her until she's already mathematically lost the primary? Because that's what Gabbard did last time around and her incentives are considerably different than his, she can plausibly run for president for the next 20-30 years if she wants.