Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mlle. Zabzie

US Politics - Primary Numbers

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I've lived under the rule of them both.  Bloomie as mayor didn't want bedbug to build that ugly monstrosity of a condo - hotel down in my neighborhood.  He couldn't even stop that.  Then there was the inevitable accidents, mortgage bankruptcies, long delays, and then it stayed empty, still standing there, with his name taken off, but still an obscene obstacle on the way to the river.

It's as though you are saying that Bloomie only raped me once and my friends a few times, but Trump has raped far more, so he's a better choice.  Blech. In fact, a lot of those stop and frisk (such a bland innocuous label for actions that were invasive, brutal, cruel, prolonged physical abuse) were as close to rape as can be got, and technically, despite maybe not a penile penetration, still technically rape.  And Bloomie thinks this was just fine. O, you may then say, of course, Bloomie was doing it legally for law and order, whereas bedbug does it for personal power and fun, so not the same.  To which, again, I vomit.

It is not the same as those who said that voting for Hillary was the same as voting for Trump.  It wasn't.  Hillary never raped me -- or anyone else. (What her husband did may well be something else, but then, he wasn't running for POTUS -- she was.)  

 

 

I've known woman who have been raped and comparing someone's inability to stop a construction project to the anguish they went through is pretty vile.

If you can't tell the difference between Trump and Bloomberg I don't known to tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

I've known woman who have been raped and comparing someone's inability to stop a construction project to the anguish they went through is pretty vile.

If you can't tell the difference between Trump and Bloomberg I don't known to tell you.

 I compared the difference between them to what stop and frisk IS.  If you can't tell the difference you have an agenda that favors anti-democracy, criminals and oligarchs: THIS IS WHAT I WROTE:

 

Quote

l In fact, a lot of those stop and frisk (such a bland innocuous label for actions that were invasive, brutal, cruel, prolonged physical abuse) were as close to rape as can be got, and technically, despite maybe not a penile penetration, still technically rape.  And Bloomie thinks this was just fine.

In the meantime, for what it's worth -- Mayor de Blasio has endorsed Sanders.

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

 I compared the difference between them to what stop and frisk IS.  If you can't tell the difference you have an agenda that favors anti-democracy, criminals and oligarchs: THIS IS WHAT I WROTE:

 

 

 

Based on what I've seen women to through I still say it's a vile comparison but fair enough I didn't get your original argument and I'll apologize for that.

These are serious times and this election is no joke. By August only two people will have a shot at being President and our democracy may depend on the one not named Trump winning. A question for lefties and centrists alike will be so want to be right or do you want to win? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the useless billionaire trivia department:

One of the weirdest things about my life in Omaha is that Warren Buffett and I have the same barber. (I did not know this when I started frequenting the establishment myself.) One of the many things showing Buffett's lack of ostentation is that he goes to the regular inexpensive barbershop in the basement of the same building where he has his own offices.

Today was the fifth or sixth time over the last 30 years that I've been in the shop at the same time as Mr. Buffett. When I arrived for my appointment he was in the chair. The television was on and he was watching a news segment (probably on CNN) about what the presidential race would be like in Bloomberg and Trump turned out to be the nominees. Mr. Buffett had the TV's remote control in his hand and when the segment was over he immediately turned the TV off (of course it was only a couple of minutes before the end of his haircut.)

I just thought it was mildly humorous that I would end up witnessing one billionaire watching a news segment about two other super-wealthy guys running for President and thought I'd share that with you political junkies.

Now back to important political issues....

Edited by Ormond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only a single poll, and not one professionals like, probably but Sanders is ahead of everybody.  The one closest to him is Warren.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/sanders-demolishes-bloomberg-buttigieg-and-klobuchar-head-to-head-says-new-poll.html

Quote

 

... Yahoo News and YouGov are out with a new poll showing that Sanders beats all of his top competitors in head-to-head races. He currently wins at least 53 percent of the vote against Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar, none of whom break more than 38 percent. The matchup is closer with Biden, who gets 44 percent versus 48 percent of Sanders. But the tightest race is with Warren, who trails him 42 percent to 44 percent, with plenty of undecideds.

It’s just one poll. But it does seem to reflect one of Sanders’ often overlooked strengths: The man is incredibly well-liked by normal Democratic voters. Sure, he might terrify some Democratic National Committee officials and cable news talking heads. Hillary Clinton and her hangers-on still have it out for the guy. But according to Morning Consult, he’s got a 74 percent favorability rating within the party, higher than any other candidate. A lot of current Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and even Bloomberg supporters currently list him as a second choice....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Based on what I've seen women to through I still say it's a vile comparison but fair enough I didn't get your original argument and I'll apologize for that.

These are serious times and this election is no joke. By August only two people will have a shot at being President and our democracy may depend on the one not named Trump winning. A question for lefties and centrists alike will be so want to be right or do you want to win? 

Your "question" doesn't even make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It's only a single poll, and not one professionals like, probably but Sanders is ahead of everybody.  The one closest to him is Warren.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/sanders-demolishes-bloomberg-buttigieg-and-klobuchar-head-to-head-says-new-poll.html

 

Yeah, I only like things like adding up three candidates totals in New Hampshire and showing how that cumulative beats Sanders by himself. This poll you shared is BS because it assumes "individual" match ups make more sense. Like, we already know, if Warren and Klobuchar drop out, ALL of their voters will go to Buttigeg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

So you agree the problem is many employers demanding a useless degree for jobs that don't need it?

Yes. However, the underlying problem is that there are not enough decent jobs in the first place. Over the past few decades, wage gains have gone to mainly those in the top quintile (more so to the top decile and even more so the top 5% and so on -- the closer to the top, the better). The result is that most jobs today don't pay much and quite a few of them are awful in other ways so the competition for the ones which are good is extremely high. Employers use college as a quick filter and if you prevent them from doing so, they'll just have to use something else.

15 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Edit: A two second google reveals to me that only 34% of Americans have a minimum 4 year degree. How is that the largest in-group in the country?

Pretty sure being white like us still takes the cake on that account.

It is possible to construct larger groups, but if you do that, they tend to fall closer to the mean. To take your example, whites as a whole are not the best-off group -- they're worse off than Asians (again, taken as a whole) by practically every measure (of course, the whites at the top are better off than everyone, but they are relatively few).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

A question for lefties and centrists alike will be so want to be right or do you want to win? 

Winning against a wannabe autocrat by electing a full-on oligarch is a pretty hollow victory. It might still be the lesser evil, and I can entertain the argument of voting for Bloomberg for the sake of harm reduction. But Jesus what a depressing state of affairs if that counts as winning 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Winning against a wannabe autocrat by electing a full-on oligarch is a pretty hollow victory. It might still be the lesser evil, and I can entertain the argument of voting for Bloomberg for the sake of harm reduction. But Jesus what a depressing state of affairs if that counts as winning 

America: Plutocrats vs Kakistocrats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Winning against a wannabe autocrat by electing a full-on oligarch is a pretty hollow victory. It might still be the lesser evil, and I can entertain the argument of voting for Bloomberg for the sake of harm reduction. But Jesus what a depressing state of affairs if that counts as winning 

Yeah. If Bloomberg manipulates his way into the nomination, fine, I'll have to vote for him. But he's more or less dead last for me in the primaries, IMO. I'd almost consider pulling the lever for Gabbard ahead of Bloomberg, that's how much his choice to try to buy his way to the nomination (adopting Trump campaign-like tactics while he's at it) bugs me. No matter what the merits of his substantive policy positions are, this is a road we should not need to go down and will encourage more rather than less of this. It's only the unique awfulness of Trump that makes voting for Bloomberg for president acceptable, but I'd really urge people to vote for those genuinely running within the framework of the Democratic nomination than folks like Steyer and Bloomberg.

 

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes 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.

This country was literally founded by slavelords who thought their taxes were too high so... yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...