Jump to content

U.S. Politics: 5.7 Billion Problems But The House Ain't One


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

Howard Schulz (ex-CEO of Starbucks) is seriously considering an independent run for President, and it has some Democrats jittery. Presumably the thought is he will peel off some independents and Democrats similar to what Perot did. Is there any reason to think he would do better than a Jill Stein? I mean, he does have more name recognition than her or Nader, but hyper-partisanship may help keep his numbers down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Morpheus said:

I think too much is being made of what will probably be short term win, Trump probably goes for the SOE in three weeks just to try and prove he is not a wimp.

Trump resorting to an emergency is still a win, politically.

19 minutes ago, Fez said:

Well, yeah, but there's not been any daylight between Pelosi and Schumer yet on this issue.

I think there's substantial daylight behind the scenes between the two.  That's not a complaint or anything, but the two aren't exactly ideological twins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Howard Schulz (ex-CEO of Starbucks) is seriously considering an independent run for President, and it has some Democrats jittery. Presumably the thought is he will peel off some independents and Democrats similar to what Perot did. Is there any reason to think he would do better than a Jill Stein? I mean, he does have more name recognition than her or Nader, but hyper-partisanship may help keep his numbers down.

Money, mostly. Money from both his own side's ability to raise it and from GOP who will happily support a third party spoiler to dems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Howard Schulz (ex-CEO of Starbucks) is seriously considering an independent run for President, and it has some Democrats jittery. Presumably the thought is he will peel off some independents and Democrats similar to what Perot did. Is there any reason to think he would do better than a Jill Stein? I mean, he does have more name recognition than her or Nader, but hyper-partisanship may help keep his numbers down.

Maybe I just live in a bubble but I doubt he has more name recognition than Nader.  I can't see people jumping on a third-party band wagon with the looming threat of another 4 years of the current GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Maybe I just live in a bubble but I doubt he has more name recognition than Nader.  I can't see people jumping on a third-party band wagon with the looming threat of another 4 years of the current GOP.

Anyway, Bloomberg still has more money and he wants it really bad.  He just can't figure out how to get it without actually, you know, campaigning.  Optics ... he's really short.  Not to mention how passionate he is about developing every square inch of real estate and owning all of it.  One of the richest people in the universe he is even more out of touch with most of the people who live on the planet than the current imbecile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DMC said:

I can't believe the idea the State of the Union had anything to do with Trump's capitulation has gained as much traction as it has in this thread.  Uh, no.  Trump lost because he adopted a losing position, and because he's a loser.

Well, the question isn't whether or not why he lost, but why he caved, and why he caved now. From most reporting spin, it sounds like the primary reason was, oddly, the double vote in the Senate - which gave McConnell the info and the ammo to call Trump and tell him that he was facing a revolt in the Senate and it was time to end it. Apparently Kushner and Trump both had a lot of hope that Senate dems would defect to their deal and that would give them some room to negotiate some kind of grand bargain (this was Kushner's idea), but that ended up being DOA. 

Trump also apparently complained about Ryan not taking care of this, about Dems not defecting and staying loyal, and all sorts of other things, but they never had a good idea of how well the Dems would stay together. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/prisoner-of-his-own-impulse-inside-trumps-cave-to-end-shutdown-without-wall/2019/01/25/e4a4789a-20d5-11e9-8b59-0a28f2191131_story.html?utm_term=.ad8e2b6efe48

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Money, mostly. Money from both his own side's ability to raise it and from GOP who will happily support a third party spoiler to dems. 

I have had this on the back of my mind since the midterms wrapped. Someone's going to ruin this for Democrats even if they don't nominate an unlovable monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Maybe I just live in a bubble but I doubt he has more name recognition than Nader.  I can't see people jumping on a third-party band wagon with the looming threat of another 4 years of the current GOP.

Maybe not his name, but the brand he used to represent. Nearly everyone in the US has heard of Starbucks, so it is easy to leverage that as a connection in people's mind. The closest analog I can think of is Carly Fiorina, but she was in a crowded field, and her company was not as memorable as Starbucks.

On the flip side people might be tired of billionaires with no political experience upending everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Fiorina wasn't exactly a success story at HP, if I am not mistaken. With regards to Schulz and Starbucks. I am all for him participating in the Democratic primary. That would at least move a few not so pleasent things about that company into the center of attention. First Starbucks tax optimizing, and how Starbucks treats its employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Well, the question isn't whether or not why he lost, but why he caved, and why he caved now. From most reporting spin, it sounds like the primary reason was, oddly, the double vote in the Senate - which gave McConnell the info and the ammo to call Trump and tell him that he was facing a revolt in the Senate and it was time to end it. Apparently Kushner and Trump both had a lot of hope that Senate dems would defect to their deal and that would give them some room to negotiate some kind of grand bargain (this was Kushner's idea), but that ended up being DOA. 

Yep, agree with all of this.  Don't see how any of it has to do with the sotu.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Maybe I just live in a bubble but I doubt he has more name recognition than Nader.  I can't see people jumping on a third-party band wagon with the looming threat of another 4 years of the current GOP.

Agreed.  I guess Schultz could have more name ID than Nader with young voters now, but not compared to when Nader ran.

42 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Well, Fiorina wasn't exactly a success story at HP, if I am not mistaken.

That's putting it nicely.

32 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I know I'm a broken record on this, but I say that anyone who voted 3rd party in 2016 was quite mad.

Anyone who ever votes 3rd party in presidential elections has a fundamental misunderstanding of party systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been meaning to ask. So how are the ant-Pelosi folk feeling about her being speaker now?

While I don’t know the players on the Democratic side the way some of you do, I can’t think of anyone else who would have handled Trump the way Pelosi did. When I think of the anti-Pelosi faction who were proclaiming they would not support her before the mid-terms, I can only believe they got sucked into the Republican propaganda against her, almost the way people got sucked in by the anti-Clinton propaganda campaign the Republicans ran against HRC.

I think Trump fears Pelosi more simply because she’s a contemporary of his. I think Trump really disdains people younger than him - they can’t possibly be as smart as he is. Trump will stand on a podium and praise a younger person, but I really have come to the conclusion absolutely nothing that comes out of his mouth can be taken as true. We all know praising someone usually meant Trump was bringing down the hammer on them. Crushing a younger Speaker would have been an easier task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Relic said:

He's not really saying that, tho. He's more going after adults who think Marvel Comics and movies are profound works of art.

Yeah he kinda is.  "And a few days later, I posted a blog that in no way was an attack on Mr. Lee, but took the occasion of his death to express my dismay at people who think comic books are literature and superhero movies are greatcinema and who, in general, are stuck in an everlasting childhood” https://comicbook.com/movies/2019/01/26/bill-maher-comic-rant-kevin-smith/

He conflated liking comic-books(to which he thinks are for kids), as being good enough reason to dub someone acting like a child. Comic-books are only appropriate  for children in the guy’s mind. It’s snobbish. Even you’re interpretation of his statements still has them in a snobbish light. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with thinking a  Marvel comic or movie is a profound work of art. Quite frankly Maher is showing his own immaturity by insisting any liking of these things is immature. There’s a pretty good C.S Lewis quote that captulates this idea; “Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Some can be interpreted as such. It’s snobbish to think they automatically can’t.

No it isn't. 

The Marvel business model removes even the possibility of considering their films as genuine works of art. 

A plate from T.J. Max can be objectively of high quality. But when you buy it in multiples of 10 with more boxes in stock than you can count, it's no longer a piece of art or even craftsmanship.

And I have nothing but disdain for that 2 bit troll Mahr, while I quite enjoy Marvel films most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any Democrat leaning person who is doing a third party run in 2020 should have a huge rock tied around their necks and thrown off a boat mid-atlantic. But that's just my personal opinion of course. Anyway, I am not exactly sure what group is worse though, the idiot running third party and the idiot voting third party in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I’ve been meaning to ask. So how are the ant-Pelosi folk feeling about her being speaker now?

I still would prefer a change in leadership.  Didn't take a political genius to beat Trump in the shutdown battle when he gave up the game before it started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...