Now that's a hawk.

Lol. She's against all the wars we are in rn.

I agree, except she was a fairly young adult (19-22) and has since become an active supporter of the LGBTQ+ community. From what I understand, she grew up in a very conservative household but her views evolved considerably when she struck out on her own personally and professionally. Which I think says a lot about her character, as well.

EDIT: As for war: Tulsi has stated in interviews that she is a hawk when it comes to fighting terrorism, but a dove when it comes to regime change wars.

Finally, I can't help loving the way Tulsi completely obliterated the hypocritical Kamala Harris in the debate.

I'm not a supporter of her either cause she is only oriented towards that one talking point on regime change wars. Like you said she brings not enough to the table.

I just don't care about her former religious self.

I love Warren also - but I think she is weaker on foreign policy. She is amazing, though, and I would absolutely support Bernie/Warren.

I really hope all this recession talk is wrong.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy

I think it's just a levelling out of the overinvesting in response to the Fed's rate cut from a few weeks ago.

that's sorta what it seems like

From what I read the Dow drop happened because of China's retaliation to Trump's trade tariffs. People started pulling their stocks with uncertainty. They started going back up after China announced that they are going to try and reach a consensus with the US. So recession warning may have just been a precaution. A lot depends on this meeting though.

But from what I've found we've experienced some of the biggest Dow drops under Trump. We've also experienced some of the biggest rises under Trump too. I'm not sure what that means.

I honestly think the president has less to do with the state of the economy than we think.

Specific **** you do can hurt the economy yes. And maybe if you're plunging downwards, something like the stimulus can soften the blow.

But as for genuine growth... I think that's largely outside their control.

I think the economy is a very unstable thing but I do think the policies we pass have a significant impact. The last recession was directly linked to the deregulation of bank lending such as the affordable home act. Not every bounce in the Dow is directly related to how well the economy is (from what I understand). It's just noted that 9 times out of 10 huge drops in the Dow just like yesterday's has historically been followed by a recession. This time it was directly caused by the president.

Yeh but that was a Clinton era policy. And Clinton was always credited with having a great economy. That's kinda exactly what I mean...

I thought it was deregulated under Bush. That's kind of what we mean when we say it usually takes longer for somebody to put us in a recession. Policies typically don't have an immediate effect.

Edit: And that wasn't they only lending policy that added to the 2008 recession, it's just the most notable one.

They both did. I guess Bush actually wanted to add regulations but couldn't because they wanted to strike a deal to push it through.

*Wouldn't.

Edit: I'm reading an article about it that says Bush was really trying to push for getting as many home owners as possible especially for minorities and he didn't think it should be regulated. In regards to the act that Bill pushed he did want to add regulations because he foresaw what they'd do but wasn't willing to cut a deal to push it through. It's definitely both administrations.

It's always annoying how hard it is just to get clear information on these things. I get it's not a simple issue and there are tons of different pieces to the puzzle but it's annoying how much you have to dig to learn things so you're not spewing misinformation around like a PragerU add.

We've had the largest point drops under Trump because the Dow is at it's highest point in history and it would've happened under any president. All of the largest drops in points occurred under Bush, Obama, and Trump. In terms of greatest drops by percentage of the Dow, the largest ones occurred on Black Monday and during the Great Depression. Some of the highest percentile changes did occur under Clinton and Bush though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...strial_Average

Okay, I assume that's why they never made that big of a deal the many other times the Dow dropped 800 points last year.

The Dow is a pretty ****ty and archaic reflection of the economy anyways.

Ahh so taking faith that you understand better than I then I'm validated in my understanding of the Dow.

But bad trade is seriously a huge economy crippler. (Also from what I understand) It always seems to be the biggest thing that destroys socialist/communist countries.

:love: :o:

I wouldnt vote for you.

I know. :love:

wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

nah, im just lost on why you think I didnt think i liked bernie already :beer:



biden just released his first ad today yall

his socialism platform will interesting to go against Biden. i dont think bernie will get the nomination and Biden will steal a lot of bernie's idea's or work together on them :pimp:

Not heard of this one. Time to hit the books.

So far he's still in the lead with black people in the polls, even after the famous moment in the first debate. Being associated with Obama seems to be taking him a long way.

typo :pimp:

Ugh. Why can't people be better at knowing things.

Literally why democracy is a sham.

Supposedly Biden does better with older black voters than he does with young ones, where as with Bernie the trend is reversed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ics/index.html

That being said the same general trend applies to all races. Biden appeals more to the 40+ crowd and Sanders appeals more to the youth. And across the board Biden currently is the clear front runner in general, and even more so with potential black voters.

Older crowds tend to vote more in actual elections as well - which these polls don't reflect.

Yeah but Sanders is still doing better with white voters than black ones. He needs to get aggressive here in order to win. His base has remained steady but he hasn't seen nearly enough growth.

on the other hand, the youth is used to the candidates in the general election being boring run of the mill politicians. The closest we ever had to a candidate that appealed to the youth was Obama in 08.

The real key part is somehow getting these people to vote in the primaries - which virtually nobody seems to do.

Probably because political talk is filtered through middle class CNN speak.