Page 296 of 587 FirstFirst ... 196246286294295296297298306346396 ... LastLast
Results 2,951 to 2,960 of 5861

Thread: Election 2020

  1. #2951
    All Star Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    6,611
    I love your unique perspective and unique way of describing things nullnor but I have absolutely no idea what you just said.

  2. #2952
    Administrator revo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fuggedabboutit
    Posts
    20,903
    Mike Bloomberg apparently is gathering signatures and filing paperwork to be eligible for the Alabama Primary, which requires this information by tomorrow.

  3. #2953
    All Star Sour Masher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Binghamton, NY
    Posts
    7,210
    Quote Originally Posted by revo View Post
    Mike Bloomberg apparently is gathering signatures and filing paperwork to be eligible for the Alabama Primary, which requires this information by tomorrow.
    He would be a game changer. I imagine he is doing this because of how well Warren and Sanders are doing. Who do you think he'd pull most from if he entered? Biden, I assume, but who else would lose out? Mayor Pete? Would he take over the middle lane? I know he is well liked, but he is another guy well into his 70s. I still think a younger candidate like Pete will emerge. Any of these over 70s winnings would be unprecedented.

  4. #2954
    Journeyman Teenwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Thunder Bay, ON, CAN
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Masher View Post
    He would be a game changer. I imagine he is doing this because of how well Warren and Sanders are doing. Who do you think he'd pull most from if he entered? Biden, I assume, but who else would lose out? Mayor Pete? Would he take over the middle lane? I know he is well liked, but he is another guy well into his 70s. I still think a younger candidate like Pete will emerge. Any of these over 70s winnings would be unprecedented.
    When will you guys realize that Mayo-Pete cannot be the nominee because black voters are allergic to him? It's disgusting that Pete has had major controversy for supporting the racists in his college town police dept, and his campaign uses that as an opportunity to spread the myth of "well, black people don't like Mayo-Pete because they're homophobic." He is disgusting. What is the fucking appeal? He has almost zero track record, and what little track record we see is terrible. He pushed out the first black police chief, after tapes were made of racist cops... his own campaign funding people later funded one of those racists on the tape to become the next police chief! This isn't nothing, it's legit, he will never turnout the black vote. His direct responses to black residents were pathetic. Dude is 38 years old, he's only doing well in the ultra white early states that he's pouring money into. It's not hard, look at Tom Steyer spending $50 mil for a handful of early state votes, and he's qualified for the next debate. Nobody has given a serious argument as to how a Dem candidate wins without getting out the black vote, because there isn't a path to winning without black turnout.

    I see you aren't cheering for him, just speculating. Even though Biden would depress a ton of turnout, at least he starts out with a clear path to winning. Buttigieg needs to win black voters and he's shown he cannot do it. So instead he smears them with the homophobic trope. How do you think that's playing in the black community? I can tell you, black people hate the guy, and rightfully so.

  5. #2955
    Journeyman Teenwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Thunder Bay, ON, CAN
    Posts
    2,850
    One more point on Pete's logic that Black people don't support him because they're homophobic...

    Remember when black voters in the 2007/2008 primary initially supported Clinton over Obama. Was it because those voters were racist that they didn't support Obama? I don't think so! He needed to win them over with substance, and he did. Mayo-Pete is both unwilling and incapable of making the same leap.

  6. #2956
    Journeyman Teenwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Thunder Bay, ON, CAN
    Posts
    2,850
    So hey, all of you Warren voters. Tell me what you think of Warren's Medicare for All funding proposal.

    I've heard it's really terrible from both mainstream and more deep dive lefty sources. Nobody seems happy with it. The head tax per worker at a flat rate of $9,500 is regressive and problematic. The 50 employee limit will hurt workers, as companies try to fit under 50, and large companies set up affiliated smaller companies as a workaround to paying the head tax. Businesses are incentivized to hire more contractors instead of workers, hurting the working class. She also strangely draws immigration reform into her funding plan (gee, that will make it easy to pass...), and she claims to reduce military spending to help pay for it (despite passing 3 consecutive bloated Trump military spending increases)... also, with businesses eating the cost of the head tax, they will find ways to scrape that back from workers. Just like Amazon re-worked company stock options and other benefits when they went to $15/hr. With Sanders' payroll tax, there aren't any easily exploitable ways to avoid the charge. It all seems like a terrible workaround to avoiding Sanders' payroll tax, from everything I've read and heard.

    Anybody with alternative readings of her proposal? I'd welcome one of her supporters' thoughts on it.

  7. #2957
    Hall of Famer B-Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Montclair, NJ
    Posts
    47,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Masher View Post
    He would be a game changer. I imagine he is doing this because of how well Warren and Sanders are doing. Who do you think he'd pull most from if he entered? Biden, I assume, but who else would lose out? Mayor Pete? Would he take over the middle lane? I know he is well liked, but he is another guy well into his 70s. I still think a younger candidate like Pete will emerge. Any of these over 70s winnings would be unprecedented.
    I don't think one can just think in terms of the ideological spectrum or "lanes". I think each candidate brings different strengths and weaknesses to the table. Bloomberg is not an inspirational visionary or a feel-your-pain empath. He's a hyper-competent executive with decency and common sense. If you believe that the American system basically does work or can work, but we need the right leadership to manage the government effectively and efficiently, holding government administrators accountable for effective execution, and steering clear of scandal, nepotism, corruption, etc. -- then Bloomberg brings a heck of a lot to the table, and it's something I don't think the other candidates in the field can necessarily point to. The New York City government, and particularly the Office of the Mayor and the Mayoral agencies, is the largest executive government system in the country outside of the federal government. There's arguably no better proving ground of executive leadership and competence. Whereas DeBlasio successfully timed and caught a progressive wave and has been able to hold on despite serious questions/concerns about his leadership and competence, and Giuliani effectively meshed his tough-on-crime policies with national downward crime trends and rallied the City after 9/11 while otherwise being a paranoid, egotistical and divisive ass, Bloomberg largely transcended division and ideology for three terms and earned massive support and trust for executive/managerial competence. I don't line up with him on ideology and policy as much as I do with Warren, but I believe there are a lot of serious strengths he brings to the table.

  8. #2958
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30,057
    Quote Originally Posted by B-Fly View Post
    I don't think one can just think in terms of the ideological spectrum or "lanes". I think each candidate brings different strengths and weaknesses to the table. Bloomberg is not an inspirational visionary or a feel-your-pain empath. He's a hyper-competent executive with decency and common sense. If you believe that the American system basically does work or can work, but we need the right leadership to manage the government effectively and efficiently, holding government administrators accountable for effective execution, and steering clear of scandal, nepotism, corruption, etc. -- then Bloomberg brings a heck of a lot to the table, and it's something I don't think the other candidates in the field can necessarily point to. The New York City government, and particularly the Office of the Mayor and the Mayoral agencies, is the largest executive government system in the country outside of the federal government. There's arguably no better proving ground of executive leadership and competence. Whereas DeBlasio successfully timed and caught a progressive wave and has been able to hold on despite serious questions/concerns about his leadership and competence, and Giuliani effectively meshed his tough-on-crime policies with national downward crime trends and rallied the City after 9/11 while otherwise being a paranoid, egotistical and divisive ass, Bloomberg largely transcended division and ideology for three terms and earned massive support and trust for executive/managerial competence. I don't line up with him on ideology and policy as much as I do with Warren, but I believe there are a lot of serious strengths he brings to the table.
    Thank you for posting this. I very much enjoyed everything about it. Much food for thought in this one.

  9. #2959
    Hall of Famer B-Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Montclair, NJ
    Posts
    47,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Teenwolf View Post
    So hey, all of you Warren voters. Tell me what you think of Warren's Medicare for All funding proposal.

    I've heard it's really terrible from both mainstream and more deep dive lefty sources. Nobody seems happy with it. The head tax per worker at a flat rate of $9,500 is regressive and problematic. The 50 employee limit will hurt workers, as companies try to fit under 50, and large companies set up affiliated smaller companies as a workaround to paying the head tax. Businesses are incentivized to hire more contractors instead of workers, hurting the working class. She also strangely draws immigration reform into her funding plan (gee, that will make it easy to pass...), and she claims to reduce military spending to help pay for it (despite passing 3 consecutive bloated Trump military spending increases)... also, with businesses eating the cost of the head tax, they will find ways to scrape that back from workers. Just like Amazon re-worked company stock options and other benefits when they went to $15/hr. With Sanders' payroll tax, there aren't any easily exploitable ways to avoid the charge. It all seems like a terrible workaround to avoiding Sanders' payroll tax, from everything I've read and heard.

    Anybody with alternative readings of her proposal? I'd welcome one of her supporters' thoughts on it.
    I think it's to her credit that, as is her m.o., she's sweating the details and putting them out there. Since a President does not and cannot enact legislation by fiat, it's ultimately a starting point. And it can be and should be subject to extensive analysis by experts in the field to vet the numbers and think through likely impacts as much as possible before any bill comes to the floor. The old political adage is that you campaign in poetry but have to govern in prose. Warren, perhaps foolishly and perhaps at great political risk, is at least trying to write the prose during the campaign, while Sanders, among others, are largely sticking with the poetry so far.

  10. #2960
    Journeyman Teenwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Thunder Bay, ON, CAN
    Posts
    2,850
    Quote Originally Posted by B-Fly View Post
    I think it's to her credit that, as is her m.o., she's sweating the details and putting them out there. Since a President does not and cannot enact legislation by fiat, it's ultimately a starting point. And it can be and should be subject to extensive analysis by experts in the field to vet the numbers and think through likely impacts as much as possible before any bill comes to the floor. The old political adage is that you campaign in poetry but have to govern in prose. Warren, perhaps foolishly and perhaps at great political risk, is at least trying to write the prose during the campaign, while Sanders, among others, are largely sticking with the poetry so far.
    Yeah, the question is whether you think voters will be more drawn to the wonky difficult to decipher white paper approach, or something easy to understand like the way Sanders describes Medicare for All.

    I would say poetry implies something fantastical whereas prose implies serious thinking. I think Warren's funding proposal is much more fantastical in its attempt to avoid taxation to pay for the plan, whereas Sanders' plan is more pragmatic and serious. So far, voters consistently trust Sanders more on health care than Warren. I don't think that will change.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •