2020 Field

cajunrevenge said:
Who exactly is Bloombergs base? Republicans?
Click to expand...

I was briefly excited by Bloomberg about a month ago, being that he was indeed a former Republican and an Independent. But it's dissipated quite a bit since then.

As far as a potential POTUS, there isn't one candidate I'm thrilled about. But as an option to beat Trump, I find him a better overall option than Biden or Klobuchar, and I think he'd probably do better than Warren as well.
 
Carp said:
I was briefly excited by Bloomberg about a month ago, being that he was indeed a former Republican and an Independent. But it's dissipated quite a bit since then.

As far as a potential POTUS, there isn't one candidate I'm thrilled about. But as an option to beat Trump, I find him a better overall option than Biden or Klobuchar, and I think he'd probably do better than Warren as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not excited by anyone in the field. But I don't look for excitement from politicians and presidents. Just someone with the capability to react in a reasonably intelligent way if something bad and unexpected showed up in their inbox. Bloomberg probably meets that test better than the others.

Bloomberg is not perfect. The personal baggage about his behavior toward women is real. I know it from a friend who worked for Bloomberg TV. Twenty years ago she volunteered out of the blue that he was a walking sexual harassment lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
I'm not excited by anyone in the field. But I don't look for excitement from politicians and presidents. Just someone with the capability to react in a reasonably intelligent way if something bad and unexpected showed up in their inbox. Bloomberg probably meets that test better than the others.

Bloomberg is not perfect. The personal baggage about his behavior toward women is real. I know it from a friend who worked for Bloomberg TV. Twenty years ago she volunteered out of the blue that he was a walking sexual harassment lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Two of the last 4 presidents have been the same way so it's hardly a disqualification apparently.
 
nsacpi said:
I'm not excited by anyone in the field. But I don't look for excitement from politicians and presidents. Just someone with the capability to react in a reasonably intelligent way if something bad and unexpected showed up in their inbox. Bloomberg probably meets that test better than the others.

.


I am excited that a candidate is willing to put it all on the line for cradle to grave health,dental and eye care for all. Theodore Roosevelt first proposed.

I am excited a few candidates are willing to address the student debt issue. It is preposterous that young people have to pay until they are in their 40's for something that less than a generation ago was virtually free.

I am excited a candidate is addressing wealth inequality

I am excited a candidate is willing to take on the military - industrial complex. Eisenhower spelled out in 1960

I am excited a candidate is speaking to Dreamers

I am excited people under 45 are politically active

I am excited a candidate is wrapping him/her self in Green New Deal

Bloomberg is 99% of the problem.
…………………………………………………..

Bloomberg's tenure as mayor of NY forces me to wonder what is it that makes you feel he "meets that test better than the others."
??
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cajunrevenge said:
Who exactly is Bloombergs base? Republicans?
Click to expand...

People who are capitalists, moderates, despise Trump as a person ...potentially a wide base. The question is whether he can get people to coalesce around him. If his first debate is any indication, I’d say no.

I was critical of him as NYC mayor. Looking back, I think he was a mixed bag.

Trump vs Sanders leaves a hell of a lot of people with no good option.
 
Last edited:
acesfull86 said:
People who are capitalists, moderates, despise Trump as a person ...potentially a wide base. The question is whether he can get people to coalesce around him. If his first debate is any indication, I’d say no.

I was critical of him as NYC mayor. Looking back, I think he was a mixed bag.

Trump vs Sanders leaves a hell of a lot of people with no good option.
Click to expand...

I'd be casting my second consecutive blank presidential ballot.
 
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/stand-up-to-bernie-or-you-and-we-all-lose

This breaks down some of my problems with Sanders.

"Experts estimate that Sanders’ major proposals would cost a staggering $60 trillion and would double the size of the government (while his tax plans fall $27 trillion short of paying for it). There’s a reason that, when pressed on the cost of his plans, Sanders simply refuses to answer, saying he actually has no idea and “no one does.”"

Sanders has on more than one occasion been unable to answer how he pay for the new programs he's proposing. The CBO projects personal income tax will result in $23.2 trillion over the next 10 years. So the shortfall between the cost of his plans and the revenue his taxes would generate is greater than the current income tax revenue. The numbers are mind boggling.

Before people start painting me as a right wing shill, fiscal responsibility is my number 1 national issue. I'll throw my support behind any candidate who is actually advocating real fiscal responsibility.
 
"Experts... ?
what experts

Sanders has answered. If you read what he says .
Moderate (R) bought voodoo economics at one time --- that is history

"Fiscal responsibility" I have always found a queer term.
What actually does that mean ?
Does it mean for instance
- being fiscally able to pay for the drugs your child needs?
- being fiscally able to be home for your child when they come home from school
- being fiscally able to buy prescription eye wear ?
- being fiscally able to pay for quality day care ?
- being fiscally able to buy boots to have boot straps
- being fiscally responsible for toxic clean up
- being fiscally able to absorb insurance hikes - which, no one outside of corporate has a say in
- being fiscally responsible to fight the urge to give the 1% yet another tax break
- being fiscally responsible to not lie to the citizenry/ misrepresenting SS cuts
- being fiscally responsible by recognizing the use of the term "socialism" as a dog whistle
- being fiscally responsible to curtail and regulate education costs
- being fiscally able to repair your car or pay your kids soccer fees

should I go on ?
…………….

Point being, "fiscal responsibility" like pornography is in the eye of the beholder
I find it a dog whistle --- an us vs them term exploited by politicians who find/take advantage of for lack of a better term "economic anxiety"
Pretty sure the past 3 years have told us what a sham that was
///////////////////////

I once argued with a poster here about the man that cleaned the bathrooms at his office complex.
His answer all but said "sucks to be him"
Disregarding years and years of dog whistle politics and systemic racism.
Next time you are at your job, look at those who might have a different definition of "fiscal responsibility" than you
 
Last edited:
I am wondering the cost of rebuilding our ignored infrastructure as opposed to the cancelled cost of maintenance in the name of "fiscal responsibility"
 
striker42 said:
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/stand-up-to-bernie-or-you-and-we-all-lose

This breaks down some of my problems with Sanders.

"Experts estimate that Sanders’ major proposals would cost a staggering $60 trillion and would double the size of the government (while his tax plans fall $27 trillion short of paying for it). There’s a reason that, when pressed on the cost of his plans, Sanders simply refuses to answer, saying he actually has no idea and “no one does.”"

Sanders has on more than one occasion been unable to answer how he pay for the new programs he's proposing. The CBO projects personal income tax will result in $23.2 trillion over the next 10 years. So the shortfall between the cost of his plans and the revenue his taxes would generate is greater than the current income tax revenue. The numbers are mind boggling.

Before people start painting me as a right wing shill, fiscal responsibility is my number 1 national issue. I'll throw my support behind any candidate who is actually advocating real fiscal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Some of the biggest parts of Sanders platform have no realistic chance of being implemented. But then there was never a chance that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. The "aspirational" character of the appeal is similar.
 
57Brave said:
"Experts... ?
what experts

Sanders has answered. If you read what he says .
Moderate (R) bought voodoo economics at one time --- that is history

"Fiscal responsibility" I have always found a queer term.
What actually does that mean ?
Does it mean for instance
- being fiscally able to pay for the drugs your child needs?
- being fiscally able to be home for your child when they come home from school
- being fiscally able to buy prescription eye wear ?
- being fiscally able to pay for quality day care ?
- being fiscally able to buy boots to have boot straps
- being fiscally responsible for toxic clean up
- being fiscally able to absorb insurance hikes - which, no one outside of corporate has a say in
- being fiscally responsible to fight the urge to give the 1% yet another tax break
- being fiscally responsible to not lie to the citizenry/ misrepresenting SS cuts
- being fiscally responsible by recognizing the use of the term "socialism" as a dog whistle
- being fiscally responsible to curtail and regulate education costs
- being fiscally able to repair your car or pay your kids soccer fees

should I go on ?
…………….

Point being, "fiscal responsibility" like pornography is in the eye of the beholder
I find it a dog whistle --- an us vs them term exploited by politicians who find/take advantage of for lack of a better term "economic anxiety"
Pretty sure the past 3 years have told us what a sham that was
///////////////////////

I once argued with a poster here about the man that cleaned the bathrooms at his office complex.
His answer all but said "sucks to be him"
Disregarding years and years of dog whistle politics and systemic racism.
Next time you are at your job, look at those who might have a different definition of "fiscal responsibility" than you
Click to expand...

You're assuming I have certain policy priorities that I do not. Fiscal responsibility is simply paying for what we buy. If we as a country decide a single payer system is what we want, great, just make sure it's fully funded. If what we want is a massive tax break, that's fine, just cut enough spending to offset it.

I'm not advocating any particular policy. In all honestly I realize in order to balance the budget we'll need to cut spending while increasing taxes. Neither on its own will be enough. I just want to see us get control of our country's finances to ensure our prosperity in the future.

If you believe we should keep our current social programs and implement new ones, you should be screaming for fiscal responsibility right along side me. We'll never be able to sustain these programs long term without doing a better job of ensuring we have the funds for them.

57Brave said:
I am wondering the cost of rebuilding our ignored infrastructure as opposed to the cancelled cost of maintenance in the name of "fiscal responsibility"
Click to expand...

You're again going off making wild assumptions about me in hopes of trying to bolster your position. You're still wrong. I'm well aware of the fact that sometimes the long term responsible choice requires a greater outlay of cash up front. Infrastructure is a great example. Investments in infrastructure can actually grow the economy to the point where the investments are profitable if they are wisely made. And I concur that costs of long term maintenance or the cost of potential failures have to be included.

I absolutely want to see more in depth reasoning when making these choices and making a determined effort to find out what is worth paying for and what isn't.

57Brave said:
with all due respect, that is irresponsible
Click to expand...

It's far, farm more irresponsible to vote for someone that I believe will be harmful to the country. When all roads are bad, sometimes all you can do is protest the situation in whatever small way you can.
 
nsacpi said:
Some of the biggest parts of Sanders platform have no realistic chance of being implemented. But then there was never a chance that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. The "aspirational" character of the appeal is similar.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that there's not a lot of chance that Sanders gets the things that he wants. It's just important to point out that what he's advocating is not rational and people should stop acting like it is.
 
Did you watch the video ?
For all of the I assume you think this and I assume you think that the one time I did address you -- you never answered, "what experts"

The argument con M4A sounds awfully familiar to (among others) the arguments about taking us off of fossil fuels
Or even the argument that we needed to stay in Viet Nam because if we don't stop the Russians there we will have to stop them in Kansas ( little did we know)

I personally feel paying for it is totally doable. It will however require political courage.
My Representative, that serves maybe 20 people (megafarmers) in our district lacks that courage to buck his 1% patrons.
and their investments in the insurance, medical and pharmaceutical complex.

Maybe you,Ace and Nas are right. Perhaps we as a country don't have the courage to attempt something bold
 
Last edited:
striker42 said:
I completely agree that there's not a lot of chance that Sanders gets the things that he wants. It's just important to point out that what he's advocating is not rational and people should stop acting like it is.
Click to expand...

Not rational ?
The rest of the civilized world would argue with that point
 
Robert Reich-

“This isn’t like 1972,” when liberal Sen. George McGovern won
the Dem nomination & collapsed in the general election
against Nixon. “In 1972, America’s middle class
was still growing. What you see here is a middle class responding to
not having a raise in 40 years.”
 
57Brave said:
Robert Reich-

“This isn’t like 1972,” when liberal Sen. George McGovern won
the Dem nomination & collapsed in the general election
against Nixon. “In 1972, America’s middle class
was still growing. What you see here is a middle class responding to
not having a raise in 40 years.”
Click to expand...

Careful about bringing up McGovern. Late in his life, McGovern expressed regret about running on a left wing economic platform. He concluded that he would have had a better chance of winning in 1972 running as an economic centrist. He regretted the choice because there were other issues he felt were more important than going left on economics. History does repeat itself from time to time. Not exactly in all details. But often in important ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top