The progressive wing of the party has an understanding of history that’s a mile wide and an inch deep, which means they’ll never grasp the fact that Warren’s proposal is considerably more radical than Sanders’.

Under US law, upon my death I retain my property and am able to dispense it as I wish if I leave a will or else state law determines what happens to it.

SWFs are funded by taxes (usually income taxes but not always) and those taxes are then invested in markets.

At its most basic level, I think both parties realize that amending the Constitution is next to impossible in today’s climate so why bother bringing it up?

Weird, isn’t it? SWFs are actually a decent idea. It’s risky, because state governments are investing in markets where all that money can go up in smoke if the market crashes, but on the other hand, if they are managed well they can get good returns for the state.  I don’t think the OP’s idea of simply having the…

They have been effective at damaging the ACA, which is yes, keeping a promise, but that’s not to their credit, as it’s not being replaced with anything, certainly not the cheap health care scheme Trump believed only he could magically figure out once he was in power.

Even if a corporation uses its tax savings to buy its own stock, it increases everyone’s 401(k), etc.  There are more ways for income to “trickle down” than simply hiring people.  As you mention, increasing stock price does grow the pie and many people benefit from it.

Are you in favor of everyone being subject to Federal estate tax or just those whose Estate is valued in excess of the current base amount?

I think that the estate tax could be increased pretty easily.  Income tax?  I think you’re right on that one but they did it recently in Kansas state tax and I haven’t heard many complaints but I don’t live there and am not sure.  I know they elected a Democrat governor who said she wasn’t going to roll taxes back …

Plenty of states already have SWFs (including some deep red ones) and no one has lost their mind over it.

So, in your world, when a politician you think is great makes statements purely to appeal to her constituents it’s simply stating a “goal” instead of a promise. On the other hand, when someone you don’t like does it, the opposite is true.

The great thing about the AOC, Warren, and Sanders tax proposals is that none are in conflict with each other, meaning you can do all of them at the same time and raise much-needed funding for things like a Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

Here you go. I didn’t include her promises to abolish ICE, ban private prisons and all the other horseshit that leftists masturbate over.

In a way, yes. As an example, I think everyone in the US is for “Medicare for All” as a concept. It’s when you get into the details of it when people splinter. If it requires raising taxes, you lose a lot of support. If people lose control over making decisions regarding their own health care, you lose a lot of…

Her 60 Minutes interview for starters.

Yawn.

Keep dreaming, loser.

I come to mock the people that think she’s the Second Coming.  

Politico ran a piece that convincingly showed that O’Rourke’s campaign was royally screwed and they made a million unforced errors.

Hillary V.2 is even worse than the first one.