Larry of the Lawn Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: I find all of this talk about oligarchs and the rich kinda funny, when the US has elected millionaires from the very beginning. George Washington was worth about $525M in today’s dollars. And owned slaves. Other presidents after him were worth $100M plus. JFK inherited $1B in today’s dollars and while he served in the military, he didn’t exactly make his own fortune in business, did he. And his wife was an oil fortune heiress. Yeah, good thing we haven't tried to improve the quality of our leaders since then. Shit we should probabaly be fine with slave holders now. I mean we had them before so why bother trying to improve anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A True Kaniggit Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: Yeah, good thing we haven't tried to improve the quality of our leaders since then. Shit we should probabaly be fine with slave holders now. I mean we had them before so why bother trying to improve anything? Screw it. Let’s just go back to kings and queens. I put myself forward for this position. My dynasty shall last a thousand years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 12 hours ago, Darzin said: Also my God, all the people here saying Bloomberg is the same as Trump, he's not. You're all going to burn the house down just because he's not your guy. If you think climate change is an existential threat and you stay home, I have no words, whatever else Bloomberg may be he's aggressive on climate change. But you all would rather watch the world literally burn, because "both sides are the same" like is climate change a real threat? Is Trump a danger to democracy? Cause if you think he is then well you'd rather the planet die and American democracy be overthrown then vote for someone who won't raise taxes as high as you want? You all are being disgraceful children in the face of some real and present dangers. It's not saying "they won't vote if they don't get the exact candidate they want", it's saying "literally pick any of the others ahead of this guy". And saying Bloomberg and Trump are similar isn't at all like the usual "both sides are the same" stuff - that pisses me off too, but Trump and Bloomberg are literally billionaires that are interested in the presidency to push the country in a direction that favours their personal wealth, and potentially to profit directly off the presidency - Trump does this and it's a reasonable concern to think Bloomberg would do the same. They both also have a history of attitudes towards gender and race that isn't well compatible with what the democrats are trying to present. The risk that nominating him results in left wingers staying home is no different in nature to the risk that Bernie would see centrists stay home or even vote for Trump. I'd view the people staying home as very different, but the risk is there with either of them, Bloomberg is not the obviously rational choice that can be expected to be acceptable to everyone in the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 I will repeat, Elizabeth Warren is who I like, but it doesn’t look like she’ll be there. I think she’d be incredibly organized and get things done. (Not that who I like has any meaning, but put it in perspective when I suggest people vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever they are.) In the meantime, for those who think the Democrats need to play as dirty as the Republicans, CNN was full of stories about Republicans organizing to vote for Sanders in the South Carolina primary, because they believe he is the weakest candidate for Trump to defeat. I sincerely hope that backfired on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 2 hours ago, karaddin said: It's not saying "they won't vote if they don't get the exact candidate they want", it's saying "literally pick any of the others ahead of this guy". And saying Bloomberg and Trump are similar isn't at all like the usual "both sides are the same" stuff - that pisses me off too, but Trump and Bloomberg are literally billionaires that are interested in the presidency to push the country in a direction that favours their personal wealth, and potentially to profit directly off the presidency - Trump does this and it's a reasonable concern to think Bloomberg would do the same. They both also have a history of attitudes towards gender and race that isn't well compatible with what the democrats are trying to present. The risk that nominating him results in left wingers staying home is no different in nature to the risk that Bernie would see centrists stay home or even vote for Trump. I'd view the people staying home as very different, but the risk is there with either of them, Bloomberg is not the obviously rational choice that can be expected to be acceptable to everyone in the party. That comment wasn't directed at you or people who were saying they don't like Bloomberg, I also don't like him and I don't think he is particularity electable, I think Republicans would be motivated against his stance on guns and sodas, and progressive turnout would be low, he is also my last choice of the democrats running. My comment was directed at Zorral and Stego who said they wouldn't vote for him as the nominee. I think the idea he is just running to protect his wealth is also wrong, he like all the Democrats has plans to raise taxes on the wealthy, not as much as Bernie Liz and the others I know, but it's possible he just thinks it's bad policy, I'm a lowly peon and I think a wealth tax the way Bernie and Liz are promising is bad policy. Yes he is not ideal and we can criticize him in the primary, but take a look at that issues page and tell me he is not addressing stuff that Trump wouldn't This also boils down to me that I feel Trump's very presence is corroding American Democracy he is an unstable loon and is constantly pushing the boundaries of our system, and it's creaking under the wait. Almost anyone would be better then him and I would happily crawl over broken glass to vote for Mitt Romney or Bob Dole or the ghost of HW if it meant getting rid of him. This isn't to say I don't care who replaces him I'm a strong Pet Buttigieg supporter and if he's not viable when the vote comes to me I'll have to vote for someone else not sure who yet (except not Bloomberg), but once that person is chosen it would be foolish not to vote for whoever it is because even Mike Bloomberg will be one thousand times better than Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted February 16, 2020 Share Posted February 16, 2020 12 hours ago, larrytheimp said: Yeah, good thing we haven't tried to improve the quality of our leaders since then. Shit we should probabaly be fine with slave holders now. I mean we had them before so why bother trying to improve anything? I mean, JFK was pretty good, but it's worth noting that his campaign was not primarily funded by himself or his family (although Papa Joe did contribute substantially), and in reaction to the high spending of both sides during his campaign he commissioned studies into how to limit campaign spending and funding, which in turn laid the ground work for Federal Election Campaign Act, with its establishment of public funding for candidates and so on. There never was a system in place n the U.S. in which someone could buy himself endorsements, a campaign machine, etc. until... well, now, basically, as money has flooded back in facts to Supreme Court decisions undermining things to the point where most people will no longer blink at any amount of or source of money for a campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.