2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
PhantomWolf said:
Would you rather that billionaires such as Bloomberg got into that sort of position by convincing all of those people supporting him, most who likely earn less in 2-3 years than he does in a day, to bankroll him while he doesn't spend a penny?
Click to expand...

No!!! This is missing the point! Is this deliberate?

The point is that when some people are extremely wealthy, they can have a massively unfair advantage in getting elected by outspending all rivals. That's the issue!
 
SezMe said:
While that's true, angrysoba, (what are you angry about? :) ) Trumps die-hard fans are not the target of such tactics. They're aimed at squishy Trump voters. At people who voted Trump in 2016 in the context, "Well, he's different. Maybe things will change." At those who only marginally follow politics and such an ad might just catch them at the right time.

And so on......
Click to expand...

A little of them.

A whole lot of "**** this ****'* **** system and it's ********** that ***** everyone in the ***! Here, we want this ******* guy. LOL!!111!1!! Hope he chucks a few ******* grenades in your precious halls of ******* power you ******** ****** ***** munching ****** pieces of ********* ****. You all can lick my ****, choke on my ****, and get ******!!!

OMGZ he won. LOLOLOLOL!!1111!!1!!!one!!eleven!1!!elvenven!!111!!

Pass popcorn plz!"

I gather this is a somewhat predominant sentiment in the rural rust belt.
 
Big NYTimes piece in how Bloomberg's tremendous wealth has allowed him to wield political influence.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/15/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-spending.html

Notable quote from the article:

That chilling effect was apparent in 2015 to researchers at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group, when they turned in a report on anti-Muslim bias in the United States. Their draft included a chapter of more than 4,000 words about New York City police surveillance of Muslim communities; Mr. Bloomberg was mentioned by name eight times in the chapter, which was reviewed by The Times.

When the report was published a few weeks later, the chapter was gone. So was any mention of Mr. Bloomberg’s name.

Yasmine Taeb, an author of the report, said in an interview that the authors had been instructed to make drastic revisions or remove the chapter, and opted to do the latter rather than “whitewash the N.Y.P.D.’s wrongdoings.” She said she found it “disconcerting” to be asked to remove the chapter “because of how it was going to be perceived by Mayor Bloomberg.”
Click to expand...

Negative coverage of Bloomberg removed because he was a huge funder of the non-profit.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Bloomberg's pitch is that unlike the current corrupt plutocrat president he's effective at corrupt plutocracy.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Trump's silver lining is that he is often unfocused and is constantly sabotaging his own efforts through his incompetent management style that keeps a revolving cast of witless cronies in his orbit.

Bloomberg would be a much more effective, if slightly less malicious, authoritarian. He wouldn't be distracted like Trump by petty self-enrichment schemes and he has already shown himself to be a savvy administrator and very able to navigate the existing administrative apparatus.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Indeed. Trump's silver lining is that he is often unfocused and is constantly sabotaging his own efforts through his incompetent management style that keeps a revolving cast of witless cronies in his orbit.

Bloomberg would be a much more effective, if slightly less malicious, authoritarian. He wouldn't be distracted like Trump by petty self-enrichment schemes and he has already shown himself to be a savvy administrator and very able to navigate the existing administrative apparatus.
Click to expand...

We'd be trading Joffrey for Tywin.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...gieg-san-francisco-queer-activists-fundraiser

It's pretty presumptuous to treat him as the "gay candidate", as if the fact that he's gay obligates him to represent the "gay community" or it's supposed interests.

From the way he's been presenting himself it's clear he's not "the gay candidate", rather he's a candidate that happens to be gay.
Click to expand...


Meanwhile, in Iowa, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that could potentially require parental permission before a politics class could mention Pete Buttigieg and his husband.

This week lawmakers in Iowa are debating whether a teacher can say "Pete Buttigieg is gay" in the classroom without first notifying parents.

I wish I were kidding but I am not.

The bill, which was introduced by 13 Republicans and advanced to the full House Education Committee on Monday, would require that lessons touching on the topic of sexual orientation or gender identity first be approved by parents, who would then have the option of sending a note to the principal excusing their children from class.

Rep. Sandy Salmon, R-Janesville, one of the bill's sponsors, reportedly was not clear whether mentioning in, say, a government class that Buttigieg has a husband would require permission (it "might," she said).
Click to expand...
 
Trebuchet said:
Trump has declared Bloomberg a racist because of Stop and Frisk, but it was just fine when it was Rudi doing it.
Click to expand...

Doing it "nation-wide" was his major proposal to black Americans in 2016. And said so in front of cameras, several times. And since he's a white supremacist, and still has that genocidal idiot Miller in tow, nobody should take him seriously.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Between stop-and-frisk, the airspace-closing, journalist-arresting, smash-and-grab operation that ended OWS, and having rules changed to allow himself more terms in office.

Sorry, he's the candidate I am actually 100% ok with skipping on in the general.

He's already done most of the **** we worry Trump might do any day now.

But I'm in an R+10 state, so I get to be principled, secure in the knowledge I will make not one bit of difference at all. So there's that.
Click to expand...

As someone in a heavily +dem state, and who is familiar with his mayoral record, I'll co-sign this one - Bloomberg's a hard pass. I''d hold my nose to vote for Mayor Pete, but if he were the nominee, fine. Dolt 45 and Bloomberg? A bumbling bigoted ignoramus, versus the focused bigoted ignoramus, versus protest vote and worrying about the rest of the ballot.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Bloomberg would be a much more effective, if slightly less malicious, authoritarian. He wouldn't be distracted like Trump by petty self-enrichment schemes and he has already shown himself to be a savvy administrator and very able to navigate the existing administrative apparatus.
Click to expand...
Ahem, slightly less malicious?

He is: 1) Pro-choice (i.e. would be unlikely to nominate any more hard-right justices on the supreme court), 2) recognizes that global warming is an issue (i.e. no more 'coal is king', no more 'drill baby drill'), 3) is in favor of increased taxes on the wealthy (which will go at least part way to addressing the current deficit problem).

How exactly is any of that "slightly" less malicious?

Again, I can understand if he's not your first choice for the democratic nominee. I can understand if you would prefer he not be anywhere near the white house. But to argue that a Bloomberg presidency would be anywhere near as damaging as another 4 years of Trump is foolish.
 
Venom said:
Geezus Khrist.

Politics class...meaning high school, where being gay is such a mystery?

**** Republicans.
Click to expand...

The choices, the choices. Excuse my kid because of how stupid it is to require a note, or make her go so she learns something that I could probably teach her in a better way?
 
Study from Yale School of Public Health concerning medicare for all. The major findings:

- 68,000 more deaths per year would be prevented compared to current system.
- would save the US $458 billion every year

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext

With figures this promising, every other candidate but Bernie should be explaining why they oppose this obvious solution.

Edit: That's 22 9/11 bodycounts a year so that the private insurance industry can turn a profit.
 
Last edited:
Another fun stat from Yale

19% of women with breast cancer become unemployed within 4 months after receiving treatment
Click to expand...

Perfect timing to both lose your income and start having to pay 100% of your health insurance premiums!

That sense of dread you feel, that's pure American choice!
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Another fun stat from Yale

19% of women with breast cancer become unemployed within 4 months after receiving treatment​

Perfect timing to both lose your income and start having to pay 100% of your health insurance premiums!
Click to expand...

"Become unemployed."

Do you know if the study goes into the reasons why this happens?

How does that compare to other cancers, in both men and women? Is 19% a high rate of unemployment following cancer? How does it compare to men with prostate cancer? Women with ovarian cancer? Either sex and lung cancer, or brain cancer?

Maybe 20% drop-out rate is typical for cancer patients. Maybe each cancer has its own typical drop-out rate. Maybe it varies by gender. Maybe women have a much lower natural drop-out rate, but employers are statistically likely to fire women simply for the sin of having breast cancer (I doubt it, though).
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Study from Yale School of Public Health concerning medicare for all. The major findings:

- 68,000 more deaths per year would be prevented compared to current system.
- would save the US $458 billion every year

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext

With figures this promising, every other candidate but Bernie should be explaining why they oppose this obvious solution.
Click to expand...
Because this 'obvious solution' is not as obvious as you might think.

Because it is possible to obtain the same benefits by providing better health care but without banning private insurance.
 
theprestige said:
"Become unemployed."

Do you know if the study goes into the reasons why this happens?

How does that compare to other cancers, in both men and women? Is 19% a high rate of unemployment following cancer? How does it compare to men with prostate cancer? Women with ovarian cancer? Either sex and lung cancer, or brain cancer?

Maybe 20% drop-out rate is typical for cancer patients. Maybe each cancer has its own typical drop-out rate. Maybe it varies by gender. Maybe women have a much lower natural drop-out rate, but employers are statistically likely to fire women simply for the sin of having breast cancer (I doubt it, though).
Click to expand...

Surely the reasons for becoming unemployed are relatively unimportant. The fact that once you become unemployed your ability to pay for your health care is compromised is what's at issue here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom