some discussion about the same tweet: The DCCC is the Democratic Party’s chief fundraising and organizational arm for House races nationally; they pile up cash and then dole out the money as needed in the thick of election campaigns to candidates who look like they have a shot at winning. You can donate to each of those individual candidates yourself, of course, but no one has a bird’s-eye view of the entire map and the institutional knowledge about which races are good investments and which aren’t like the DCCC. Cutting a candidate a check is a small way to ensure that candidate wins his or her race. Cutting the DCCC a check is a small way to ensure that Democrats hold, or even expand on, their House majority. In the interest of protecting that majority, the DCCC has decided this year not to do business with consultants and other outside vendors who choose to work for a candidate engaged in a primary challenge to a current Democratic incumbent. Which is … awkward, considering (a) progressives are gung ho to primary some centrist-y party dinosaurs in blue districts and (b) the breakout political star of the House freshman class successfully primaried Joe Crowley to win her own seat. So now here she comes to tell lefties not to donate to the DCCC until they change their policy. . . . In fairness, what else could she say? To switch in the span of nine months from successful primary challenger to anti-primary incumbent would be one of the most comical cases of a new public official going native in Washington in modern American history. https://hotair.com/archives/2019/04...ng-oppose-primary-challenges-shouldnt-donate/
This is exactly as ignorant as if I said "anyone who supports Trump is brain dead." Statements like that paint you as a biased partisan whose comments should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a deer lick.
Have you read the Green New Deal resolution? https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text It is a visionary framework to respond to our progressing environmental disaster in the best manner we can devise with the intent of maximally bolstering our economy, employment, national security, technological advancement, and personal health. Resistance of individual citizens to this, as is typical toward any proposal for progress, is based far too much on letting talking points and mouthpieces define one's views instead of considering the actual facts. I'll say further that the behavior I see from those opposing progress--those opposing improvements to our environment, health, practice of democratic principles, advancement of technology, etc.--suggests they have it it their heads that progressives act in the same manner they do, that they believe progressives swallow the pablum of talking points and mouthpieces. The predominant truth is that we are far more apt to pursue the actual data, the measurable facts, the direct testimony, and base our logic and choices on them.
That’s fine to be a visionary but you have to base it in reality. The Green New Deal is not based in reality. Renewables should never be the primary backbone of an energy infrastructure. It’s impossible for them to be based on their uncertainty and they are not nearly as ecologically friendly as they are assumed to be.
To be fair, upon hearing hearing the news of the 22nd amendment passing congress, FDR was rumored to have said "over my dead body".
So... no YouTube video? I understood the question I asked. You simply don't understand what a health care outcome is. It's the result of a medical intervention of which work isn't one. So you started with a fake premise and then continued to pretend that the Republican lawmakers had some intention of helping Medicaid recipients by enforcing a work requirement. When you use certain language I use language that attributes its use. That's how language works. So when you say Democrat Party which is no term I'd heard in the last forty years until radio talk show blowhards like Mark Levin started using it then I question why you would use the term.
You said And I replied with a pretty good article discussing Medicaid work requirements and health. (https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-...and-health-findings-from-a-literature-review/ for anyone who wants to check it out). You replied by calling me a wingnut and then decided to call me ESL for some reason. If that wasn't the type of article you were looking for then all you had to say was "Hey, Robbie I was specifically talking about XYZ....". Someone else in the thread actually found value in the article and liked it. You didn't have to start spouting off and insulting me for no reason. I have no idea why I'm continuing to explain manners to someone who is clearly older than me, but I am. Who in the world listens to Mark Levin? That guy sucks. He's as bad as the hacks anywhere on cable news. Would you have freaked out if I said Repub instead of Republican? I'm guessing no, but you are hypersensitive to when it comes to your team so you freaked out over Democrat v Democratic for some reason. Just for clarity....the Democrat response and the Democratic response mean the same thing to me and it isn't a pejorative to say it how I said it. So I will reiterate an earlier post where I wrote to you in Spanish (after your ridiculous ESL jab) and I'll tell you again to relax, take a break, and hugs for you ;-).
Let's not pretend that this is even remotely the case. It's hilarious watching people choose sides and pretend that they are not partisan. It's bullshit. If you want to lie to yourself that's cool.
This is where the utility industry is going anyway. A digitized two-way grid that can serve as a platform for many, many distributed renewable energy resources. It can fit nuclear and fossil fuel generation, but we're working on enabling consumers to be producers too who will easily trade surplus energy from their rooftop solar panel or their car battery or their water heater in a liquid market. For all the dumb stuff in there like the unrealistic time horizons and unrealistic expectations of government power, it at least picks up on the innovation going on in energy that the Coal Warriors are oblivious to.
Normally that would be true. But @King1 has the special ability to know the reasoning and logic behind every single person in the nation. Just watch him go.
pretty sure Representative Ocasio-Cortez is a little tipsy in this . . . either that or she is "mentally unwell."
This is not really waht is being said in that video if you just push "play" - it speaks for itself. But I"m sure @CalebJHull and his thousands of influential followers will have the last laugh on AOC, just like this guy