Kalbear Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 1 minute ago, James Arryn said: Right off the bat you lose the green vote. Trump's at least biodegradable (mostly). I am not remotely convinced of that. I suspect whatever graveyard takes him will have to be dedicated as a superfund site. On Bloomberg - to be clear, I don't care at all about the 'government as business' bullshit, though it's clear that there are a whole lot of very gullible people who do. I don't like his fiscal conservatism all that much either. However, he is a sane person who believes in government to get things done, especially socially, and he is someone who I think could plausibly piss off Trump and take out some of Trump's conservative voters as they could reasonably state they're voting for someone palatable. In a perfect world he'd try to primary Trump, but barring that (and I really don't think that's likely) him running Dem wouldn't be too bad. Him running independent would be horrifying unless miraculously congress becomes Democratic, and I don't see that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 6 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Right off the bat you lose the green vote. Trump's at least biodegradable (mostly). Both pieces of shit are biodegradable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felice Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 43 minutes ago, Red Tiger said: Joe Kennedy III is really young, but maybe this is the time for a person to break the record for youngest-elected president Another Kennedy? Is anyone else disturbed at the way the same families keep coming up with presidential candidates? The US isn't supposed to be a hereditary monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 1 hour ago, felice said: Another Kennedy? Is anyone else disturbed at the way the same families keep coming up with presidential candidates? The US isn't supposed to be a hereditary monarchy. The US is also supposed to be against Royalty and nobility, but the way it idolizes celebrities, you'd have a hard time guessing that was the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 6 minutes ago, felice said: Another Kennedy? Is anyone else disturbed at the way the same families keep coming up with presidential candidates? The US isn't supposed to be a hereditary monarchy. It's not, it's more like an elective monarchy like the HRE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 It's another reason that a parliamentary monarchy is good - having a family that is there to appear royal, elegant, mannered, important but isn't actually the ruling factor is a GREAT way to diffuse the idea that the rulers have to not only be good rulers, but have to be really hot and nice and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Red Tiger said: The sad thing is that many of the more corporate-oriented democrats have done similar things. But again, it doesn't matter as Bloomberg will never get the nod. Joe Kennedy III is really young, but maybe this is the time for a person to break the record for youngest-elected president, while beating the oldest-elected one. He's been fierce in standing up for progressive values and he is a good speaker, though not a great one. Harris has the background, both in terms of personal history and legal history, plus the diversity angle. She is a half-black, half-Indian former attorney general who graduated from Howard University and represents California. He is also possessed of negative charisma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 I don't think the constitutional monarchy bit is too important either way but I think the election of Trump is pretty clearly illustrating that having a head of state who's basically an elected 18th century king with a term limit isn't a good idea. It's better than an unelected 18th century king but there are probably a few better options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Until recently, I could have been all judgmental about the whole 'new aristocracy' thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 34 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I am not remotely convinced of that. I suspect whatever graveyard takes him will have to be dedicated as a superfund site. On Bloomberg - to be clear, I don't care at all about the 'government as business' bullshit, though it's clear that there are a whole lot of very gullible people who do. I don't like his fiscal conservatism all that much either. However, he is a sane person who believes in government to get things done, especially socially, and he is someone who I think could plausibly piss off Trump and take out some of Trump's conservative voters as they could reasonably state they're voting for someone palatable. In a perfect world he'd try to primary Trump, but barring that (and I really don't think that's likely) him running Dem wouldn't be too bad. Him running independent would be horrifying unless miraculously congress becomes Democratic, and I don't see that happening. Watched these 2 guys' interactions for a very long time by now. Bloomberg will / would never take on the orange mano a mano in an election. Funding movements and research and campaign ads, yes, he has and will do that. But not f2f. That's just not how Bloomie works, He'd never open himself to a f2f confrontation with that unhinged deranged boundrey-less entity. It would make him sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 16 minutes ago, ljkeane said: I don't think the constitutional monarchy bit is too important either way but I think the election of Trump is pretty clearly illustrating that having a head of state who's basically an elected 18th century king with a term limit isn't a good idea. It's better than an unelected 18th century king but there are probably a few better options. I'd take any of the first three Georges over Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 @Manhole Eunuchsbane sorry I told you to go fuck yourself, that was uncalled for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 21, 2017 Author Share Posted August 21, 2017 6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: @Manhole Eunuchsbane sorry I told you to go fuck yourself, that was uncalled for. It's all good larry. Sorry I said something to illicit that response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Ah, fuck, we're headed for a fucking group hug, aren't we? Just so's you know, I haven't showered today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 21, 2017 Author Share Posted August 21, 2017 27 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Ah, fuck, we're headed for a fucking group hug, aren't we? Just so's you know, I haven't showered today. I blame IamMe90. That post really moved me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Red Tiger said: I have no issues with Bloomberg's fiscal policy. What im saying is that the democratic establishment DOES. Nah. The establishment would be the most receptive to Bloomberg. It's the activist base that will (and to some extent, do) hate his guts. Running Bloomberg is like running Hillary Clinton again, except way more centrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, Shryke said: Nah. The establishment would be the most receptive to Bloomberg. It's the activist base that will (and to some extent, do) hate his guts. Running Bloomberg is like running Hillary Clinton again, except way more centrist. And richer. And more powerful. If Bloomie wantys to do something useful in terms of opo to the insane ones who are now in charge, he should fund a very large media conglomerate that hires and pays writer, thinkers, commentators on the scale that the other sides does. That is the most effective and powerful thing that can be done -- and would help so much in changing the gerrymandering and other voter repression strategies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said: After George Bush the Lesser and Herr Drumpf, let's take a break from the "businessman President" shtick. The government does not run like a corporation. Trump's attempts to do shit with the government, such as they are anyway, kinda illustrate this point super well. He is utterly incapable of dealing with a situation where he has to, like, work with other people. It turns out being President is nothing like being CEO. There's a ton of people you have to deal with as President who don't owe you shit, who aren't really accountable to you and who you can't directly order or threaten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Shryke said: Nah. The establishment would be the most receptive to Bloomberg. It's the activist base that will (and to some extent, do) hate his guts. Running Bloomberg is like running Hillary Clinton again, except way more centrist. But the activist base is desperate to do what it takes to get rid of Trump. Which means nominating a centrist for the Dems backs them into a corner and pretty much forces them to vote for him/her. At this stage (which might change in 3 years) I would think the Left wing of the Democratic party would vote for a warmed up corpse Democrat over a charismatic Green. But the independent left may well be happy to see the whole edifice crumble with 4 more years of Trump. What nominating a centrist who's name isn't Clinton does is give centre-right independents and Republicans a safe harbour, they can vote to keep a Republican congress but take the Whitehouse keys out of Trump's hands by voting for an ideologically acceptable Democrat. What they won't do is vote for a Democratic candidate that is solidly left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 On 8/21/2017 at 7:31 PM, The Anti-Targ said: But the activist base is desperate to do what it takes to get rid of Trump. Which means nominating a centrist for the Dems backs them into a corner and pretty much forces them to vote for him/her. At this stage (which might change in 3 years) I would think the Left wing of the Democratic party would vote for a warmed up corpse Democrat over a charismatic Green. But the independent left may well be happy to see the whole edifice crumble with 4 more years of Trump. What nominating a centrist who's name isn't Clinton does is give centre-right independents and Republicans a safe harbour, they can vote to keep a Republican congress but take the Whitehouse keys out of Trump's hands by voting for an ideologically acceptable Democrat. What they won't do is vote for a Democratic candidate that is solidly left. I’m not sure about this. It seems to me that Democrats should worry more about getting their own base out. It seems to me that Republicans are always gonna play team Republican no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.