So the new buzz phrase among Trump and Dem. candidates is that Bloomberg is buying his way into the election. Funny enough though, all those cracky fools have rich corporate backers buying them their own influence into the election (apart from Sanders and maybe warren). I would rather have somebody self fund their campaign then get it from others since at least Bloomberg has nobody to answer to.

Meh, the details don’t make much difference when the whole campaign finance system is broken. Just out today that McConnell’s reelection campaign is up to $50K in donations from pharma since announcing no drug price reset will ever get to the Senate floor. Disgusting.

Since when is Congress empowered to set or reset drug prices? Are consumers and doctors too stupid to decide their value? Is that in Art. 1, Section 8?

What liberal traits does Bloomberg have other than his meddling in personal life choices? He got his ass handed to him tonight at the debate and for good reason.

TTailedTiger wrote:

What liberal traits does Bloomberg have other than his meddling in personal life choices? He got his ass handed to him tonight at the debate and for good reason.

What does that have to do with the topic of Trump and libs attacking him for spending his own money in his campaign? And what if some of us want a conservative who is liberal on the social front (ie lgbt/minority rights) but not the "carnival barking clown" that Trump is

stl07 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

What liberal traits does Bloomberg have other than his meddling in personal life choices? He got his ass handed to him tonight at the debate and for good reason.

What does that have to do with the topic of Trump and libs attacking him for spending his own money in his campaign? And what if some of us want a conservative who is liberal on the social front (ie lgbt/minority rights) but not the "carnival barking clown" that Trump is

Do you honestly not understand that your competitors are going to take any shot at you that they can? It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to get attention. And Bloomberg is not a champion of minorities. Did you miss his comments about the black community and trans people? He only apologized because he was caught.

TTailedTiger wrote:

stl07 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

What liberal traits does Bloomberg have other than his meddling in personal life choices? He got his ass handed to him tonight at the debate and for good reason.

What does that have to do with the topic of Trump and libs attacking him for spending his own money in his campaign? And what if some of us want a conservative who is liberal on the social front (ie lgbt/minority rights) but not the "carnival barking clown" that Trump is

Do you honestly not understand that your competitors are going to take any shot at you that they can? It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to get attention. And Bloomberg is not a champion of minorities. Did you miss his comments about the black community and trans people? He only apologized because he was caught.

Nobody said he's a champion. He's just more socially liberal than Trump. And not impeached and corrupted. He's no angel, but he's not a socialist nor is he a sitting Russian/Qatari agent

stl07 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

stl07 wrote:

What does that have to do with the topic of Trump and libs attacking him for spending his own money in his campaign? And what if some of us want a conservative who is liberal on the social front (ie lgbt/minority rights) but not the "carnival barking clown" that Trump is

Do you honestly not understand that your competitors are going to take any shot at you that they can? It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to get attention. And Bloomberg is not a champion of minorities. Did you miss his comments about the black community and trans people? He only apologized because he was caught.

Nobody said he's a champion. He's just more socially liberal than Trump. And not impeached and corrupted. He's no angel, but he's not a socialist nor is he a sitting Russian/Qatari agent

I don't see how anyone can claim to be a fan of aviation and be a Democrat. Not when you have people like AOC who do their best to hurt the industry. Install a liberal president and Congress and her squad will push through all sorts of crippling legislation.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Since when is Congress empowered to set or reset drug prices? Are consumers and doctors too stupid to decide their value? Is that in Art. 1, Section 8?

if you think about what McConnell good at, the answer will sink in.

TTailedTiger wrote:

stl07 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Do you honestly not understand that your competitors are going to take any shot at you that they can? It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to get attention. And Bloomberg is not a champion of minorities. Did you miss his comments about the black community and trans people? He only apologized because he was caught.

Nobody said he's a champion. He's just more socially liberal than Trump. And not impeached and corrupted. He's no angel, but he's not a socialist nor is he a sitting Russian/Qatari agent

I don't see how anyone can claim to be a fan of aviation and be a Democrat. Not when you have people like AOC who do their best to hurt the industry. Install a liberal president and Congress and her squad will push through all sorts of crippling legislation.

I bet you've never heard of Amy McGrath either

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Nobody said he's a champion. He's just more socially liberal than Trump. And not impeached and corrupted. He's no angel, but he's not a socialist nor is he a sitting Russian/Qatari agent

I don't see how anyone can claim to be a fan of aviation and be a Democrat. Not when you have people like AOC who do their best to hurt the industry. Install a liberal president and Congress and her squad will push through all sorts of crippling legislation.

I bet you've never heard of Amy McGrath either

Sure I have. Lots of people don't want others to enjoy what they do/did. She's had her fun and she would do whatever AOC told her to do.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Since when is Congress empowered to set or reset drug prices? Are consumers and doctors too stupid to decide their value? Is that in Art. 1, Section 8?

In a country where congress has the power of making it illegal to call for boycotts of countries they sure as hell have the power to set drug prices.
But you are right, they should just make a law giving patients and doctors the right to set drug prices.....

stl07 wrote:

So the new buzz phrase among Trump and Dem. candidates is that Bloomberg is buying his way into the election.

they should be happy he is pouring that much money into it, especially since a good deal of his ads to attack GOP candidates/weak spots and not just to promote himself. Him and Steyer are the only ones having funds to do so.

Plus: he is a Republican, but he understands that 2020 Americans have two options: Vote for Trump or vote for the Republic.

best regards
Thomas

stl07 wrote:

So the new buzz phrase among Trump and Dem. candidates is that Bloomberg is buying his way into the election. Funny enough though, all those cracky fools have rich corporate backers buying them their own influence into the election (apart from Sanders and maybe warren). I would rather have somebody self fund their campaign then get it from others since at least Bloomberg has nobody to answer to.

Campaign finance is a worthy topic to discuss... Yes even the populists have a lot of money and influence...

But what Bloomberg is doing is absolutely buying an election. He is hardly doing anything but spamming ads with tons of money and actually started to poll fairly decently. His success is at least 99% his money and 1% his skill, ideas, etc

That's my opinion anyway

DeltaMD90 wrote:

stl07 wrote:

So the new buzz phrase among Trump and Dem. candidates is that Bloomberg is buying his way into the election. Funny enough though, all those cracky fools have rich corporate backers buying them their own influence into the election (apart from Sanders and maybe warren). I would rather have somebody self fund their campaign then get it from others since at least Bloomberg has nobody to answer to.

Campaign finance is a worthy topic to discuss... Yes even the populists have a lot of money and influence...

But what Bloomberg is doing is absolutely buying an election. He is hardly doing anything but spamming ads with tons of money and actually started to poll fairly decently. His success is at least 99% his money and 1% his skill, ideas, etc

That's my opinion anyway

But you´d probably need a few very progressive supreme court judges to put a limit on buying elections with your own money...

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

stl07 wrote:

So the new buzz phrase among Trump and Dem. candidates is that Bloomberg is buying his way into the election. Funny enough though, all those cracky fools have rich corporate backers buying them their own influence into the election (apart from Sanders and maybe warren). I would rather have somebody self fund their campaign then get it from others since at least Bloomberg has nobody to answer to.

Campaign finance is a worthy topic to discuss... Yes even the populists have a lot of money and influence...

But what Bloomberg is doing is absolutely buying an election. He is hardly doing anything but spamming ads with tons of money and actually started to poll fairly decently. His success is at least 99% his money and 1% his skill, ideas, etc

That's my opinion anyway

But you´d probably need a few very progressive supreme court judges to put a limit on buying elections with your own money...

best regards
Thomas

Fixing campaign finance requires a Constitutional amendment because the current situation is FAR beyond anything the framers could have envisioned. And that’s exactly why our chances of seeing it happen are on par with restarting B757 production.

Problem is that to gain office you have to be a Billionaire or get funded by Billionaires.

Either way their priorities are looking after Billionaires, not Joe Public.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Are consumers and doctors too stupid to decide their value?

Consumers and doctors do not decide the value of medicines. Insurances and pharma corporations do. And given that they are orders of magnitude higher in the US than in the rest of the World and that they absolutely do not reflect their actual value , one could say there is a problem.
The free market system that neo-republicans advocate is obviously not working in the case of the pharmaceutical industry.
If you are such a proponent of liberalization, you'd agree that pharma companies should not be protected and that the drug marketplace should be open to more competition, which would drive the prices down.
As such, the government is helping drug retain absolute power over the patents that they own and market, giving customers essentially no choice and driving the vicious circle of rising prices created by this ludicrous system.

As for Bloomberg, he set himself up to criticism the moment he entered the democratic campaign as a New York billionaire set to oust another New York billionaire universally panned by all democrats... I don't think he'd be a bad candidate, but he wouldn't be enough to win over Trump. But then again neither would Pelosi or Sanders... too polarizing.

IMO, Trump is clearly more liberal than Bloomberg, he just has a different personal style.

Question 1. Whose policies would favor working Americans more (honestly, I'm not sure). Bloomberg is a plutocrat who openly derides the American working class, while I think Trump is a plutocrat who seeks the approval of the working class. Bloomberg venerates the elite like himself, while Trump blasts professional / government cliques, media titans and much of NY/LA. Again, who would appeal more to the working class? That is my definition of liberal.

Are we to believe Bloomberg will do well in the industrial towns of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania? The places where the election will be decided?

The other definition might be the use of military might. Bloomberg, like Biden, supported the Iraq invasion, and in 2004 repeated his support. Although Bloomberg was not in congress, he was mayor of NY, a very prominent voice in the post 9/11 security discussion. It would be great if Bloomberg could again discuss why, as a Republican politician representing New York after 9/11, he was a vocal supporter of the Iraq invasion. I bring this up not because it is a big issue in the 2020 election, but as a test to show whether or not Bloomberg is a Republican. Also, recall that Trump was a longtime Democrat. So I am not floating an entirely wingnut concept here.

LCDFlight wrote:

Question 1. Whose policies would favor working Americans more (honestly, I'm not sure). Bloomberg is a plutocrat who openly derides the American working class, while I think Trump is a plutocrat who seeks the approval of the working class. Bloomberg venerates the elite like himself, while Trump blasts professional / government cliques, media titans and much of NY/LA. Again, who would appeal more to the working class? That is my definition of liberal.

Neither, as evidenced by your point about Bloomberg's plutocratic sympathies, and evidenced by the fact Trump policies have not had an appreciable or statistically significant impact on the working class. Much of the data touted by the WH is heavily sugarcoated, as has been posted with factual reference numerous times here. They use only the rosiest unemployment calculation, the U-3, whereas the more accurate and inclusive U-6 is gradually flattening out at the 2001 level of about 7%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3B

They also routinely tout wage gains, but the WH and WH-friendly press only quote gains in nominal hourly wage, which doesn't consider inflation or cost of living increases. Adjusting for those, the real wage gains of workers not in high positions are not impressive, pegged to an average of a little over 1% over the last 3 years. All an opponent of Trump needs to do is show these graphs during a campaign commercial or debate.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3G

Bloomberg spends his money on the campaign and buys himself support, Sanders buys support offering free stuff to voters. Not much difference only that Sanders will spend tax payer money on the votes.

TTailedTiger wrote:

stl07 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

What liberal traits does Bloomberg have other than his meddling in personal life choices? He got his ass handed to him tonight at the debate and for good reason.

What does that have to do with the topic of Trump and libs attacking him for spending his own money in his campaign? And what if some of us want a conservative who is liberal on the social front (ie lgbt/minority rights) but not the "carnival barking clown" that Trump is

Do you honestly not understand that your competitors are going to take any shot at you that they can? It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to get attention. And Bloomberg is not a champion of minorities. Did you miss his comments about the black community and trans people? He only apologized because he was caught.

At least he apologizes. Trump just doubles down and sends out more angry tweets.

So a guy who has his own private army but wants to prevent people from defending themselves is not a hypocrite?

And just how amazing is it that after everything we have been through, after the whole "Trump is a Russian plant" thing that turned out to be nothing but a giant "fuck-you" to voters by the media-intelligence complex, there are still idiots using that talking point?

Bloomberg is a controversial figure, but it's progressives who have made him as such.

"We should not be beholden to corporations and billionaires"...in other words, we shouldn't take campaign contributions from rich people because it means candidates will answer to them instead of others.

So in goes a rich person to self-fund.

"Billionaires are buying the election"...so a billionaire is not worthy of running for president because of their wealth. Buying the election implies buying support but if the ads have stuck and people believe what he's selling, that's not buying the election any more than a regular candidate using campaign funds to place ads everywhere.

I don't want Bloomberg as the nominee and he has a LOT of baggage (though against Trump, it's not like Trump can claim to have the higher ground), but as much as it pains me to say this, rich people are also part of this election and someone's wealth shouldn't be a disqualification to run for office.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Bloomberg is a controversial figure, but it's progressives who have made him as such.

"We should not be beholden to corporations and billionaires"...in other words, we shouldn't take campaign contributions from rich people because it means candidates will answer to them instead of others.

So in goes a rich person to self-fund.

"Billionaires are buying the election"...so a billionaire is not worthy of running for president because of their wealth. Buying the election implies buying support but if the ads have stuck and people believe what he's selling, that's not buying the election any more than a regular candidate using campaign funds to place ads everywhere.

I don't want Bloomberg as the nominee and he has a LOT of baggage (though against Trump, it's not like Trump can claim to have the higher ground), but as much as it pains me to say this, rich people are also part of this election and someone's wealth shouldn't be a disqualification to run for office.

Democrats have themselves to blame for the chaos on these primaries. They have become too 'woke', and they have basically cancelled themselves by setting so high standards on politics, turns out no one is perfect and most have baggage and issues that would go against 'woke' values. They are attacking themselves for the same standards they have set on themselves. Its pretty amusing and great for TV.

This is what is interesting with 'woke politics', we saw it in Canada with their PM doing blackface (even though he won), no politician is going to be perfect enough.

Last night the winner was Trump, and it seems this circus is going to go for a long time.

Bloomberg is buying ads like crazy. Here in NC, I have heard about a 4 to 1 ad ratio of ads for Bloomberg. The other candidates need to attack him on the stage, as they are unable to attack him with media ad buys at this stage. Bloomberg is controversial for a lot of reasons, but he may be one of the best to go up against Trump. Time will tell how this all plays out, but one thing is for certain, hope and change are not the priorities of the democrats at this point.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

This is what is interesting with 'woke politics', we saw it in Canada with their PM doing blackface (even though he won), no politician is going to be perfect enough.

Bc that whole "blackface" thing is total BS? To me, nobody, I mean absolutely nobody, bet an eye on "blackface" (and it's actually "brown face") in 2001.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg had shown, consistently, from 1990s to now, that he's a racist and a "dirty old man". That's a HUGE difference. The Repukes may not care (Trump is 10x worse than Bloomberg when it comes to racism and sexism), but the Dems does.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Last night the winner was Trump, and it seems this circus is going to go for a long time.

The winner is Bernie. He's the frontrunner yet still, Bernie barely got attacked in the debate (Seriously, Bernie's idea is as lunacy as "Mexico will pay for the wall") as Bloomberg got all the attention.

casinterest wrote:

Bloomberg is buying ads like crazy. Here in NC, I have heard about a 4 to 1 ad ratio of ads for Bloomberg. The other candidates need to attack him on the stage, as they are unable to attack him with media ad buys at this stage. Bloomberg is controversial for a lot of reasons, but he may be one of the best to go up against Trump. Time will tell how this all plays out, but one thing is for certain, hope and change are not the priorities of the democrats at this point.

Thanks, but no thanks for Bloomberg. He's only polling as high as he is as the fence sitter that don't know who to support but used to say Biden now go for Bloomberg. Once MB is exposed for the fraud that he is, no money can buy him a presidency.

zakuivcustom wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Last night the winner was Trump, and it seems this circus is going to go for a long time.

The winner is Bernie. He's the frontrunner yet still, Bernie barely got attacked in the debate (Seriously, Bernie's idea is as lunacy as "Mexico will pay for the wall") as Bloomberg got all the attention.

If we're going to extrapolate, then Biden also won the debate. His collapse is partly as a result of Bloomberg's surge. If people get turned off by Bloomberg, Biden may recover most of that support. After last night's debate, I think people will be rethinking their support for Bloomberg, especially if he qualifies for the next debate and gets knocked down too.

I will say: I find it hard to think Bernie will win the nomination. He'd have to seal the deal by winning over 50% of each of the contests. In a WTA system, a plurality may give him the advantage. In a proportional system, if you don't win a majority, you don't get the nomination. He may be winning the debates (in this case by emerging unscathed because he wasn't the target) and winning pluralities, but let's not assume that he'll run away with the nomination just yet.

zakuivcustom wrote:

The winner is Bernie. He's the frontrunner yet still, Bernie barely got attacked in the debate (Seriously, Bernie's idea is as lunacy as "Mexico will pay for the wall") as Bloomberg got all the attention.

casinterest wrote:

Bloomberg is buying ads like crazy. Here in NC, I have heard about a 4 to 1 ad ratio of ads for Bloomberg. The other candidates need to attack him on the stage, as they are unable to attack him with media ad buys at this stage. Bloomberg is controversial for a lot of reasons, but he may be one of the best to go up against Trump. Time will tell how this all plays out, but one thing is for certain, hope and change are not the priorities of the democrats at this point.

Thanks, but no thanks for Bloomberg. He's only polling as high as he is as the fence sitter that don't know who to support but used to say Biden now go for Bloomberg. Once MB is exposed for the fraud that he is, no money can buy him a presidency.

Bernie is not doing a good job selling a winning argument. He is going to lose the socialism fight with Trump.

Bloomberg is getting his name out in a way many of the other candidates are not. There is a very weak ad program for the other candidates, and it will cause a collapse in the campaign of others if they don't get going.

zakuivcustom wrote:

The winner is Bernie. He's the frontrunner yet still, Bernie barely got attacked in the debate (Seriously, Bernie's idea is as lunacy as "Mexico will pay for the wall") as Bloomberg got all the attention.

Democrats were at each other throats last night, can't think anyone but Trump winning this debate.

Edit: BTW, Bernie complaining to Bloomberg that calling him a communist was a 'cheap shot', shows that he is ill prepared for what will come when he faces Trump in the debate stage.

Pyrex wrote:

And just how amazing is it that after everything we have been through, after the whole "Trump is a Russian plant" thing that turned out to be nothing but a giant "fuck-you" to voters by the media-intelligence complex, there are still idiots using that talking point?

I see you still didn't get around to reading the Mueller report.

Remeber he didn't bring charges on the collision bit because there wasn't enough evidence to proof that they knew they committed crimes, but absolutely proof that they did conspire with the russians. He explicitly did not exonerate Trump. He also laid out why that is the limit of how far he could go under current DoJ policies.

On top it would appear that plenty of russian Money was funneled into Trump, as per DB employees. So there is that as well. And funny how the criminal investigation into the bank, Trump ows hundreds of millions to, laundering 20 billion USD of Russian money seemingly stopped under Barr as well.

So, ultimately it is still a talking point because Mueller proved it true. And he could only scratch the surface as, after a Rudy visit, Ukraine stopped investigating the ledger and him not having access to much in the way of financial records.
But with congress Republicans being in on the conspiracy there is nothing to be done until he is out of office.

Best regards
Thomas

I thought this thread was going to be about something *completely* different after last night...

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Since when is Congress empowered to set or reset drug prices? Are consumers and doctors too stupid to decide their value? Is that in Art. 1, Section 8?

LOL wut. What is the price of a dialysis treatment? One Tylenol pill in a hospital? A lymphoma chemo treatment? A hip replacement?

I can't believe anyone would say that with a straight face.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Democrats have themselves to blame for the chaos on these primaries. They have become too 'woke', and they have basically cancelled themselves by setting so high standards on politics, turns out no one is perfect and most have baggage and issues that would go against 'woke' values. They are attacking themselves for the same standards they have set on themselves. Its pretty amusing and great for TV.

This is what is interesting with 'woke politics', we saw it in Canada with their PM doing blackface (even though he won), no politician is going to be perfect enough.

Boomer says what? Just because you and your republican buds love and prioritize stop-'n-frisk minorities, almost as much as you love don't-hire-minorities, don't-employ-minorities, don't-rent-to-minorities, and don't-allow-minority-students, doesn't mean anyone opposed to that is pushing "woke politics". It means they are pushing for everyone to succeed.

Aaron747 wrote:

Neither, as evidenced by your point about Bloomberg's plutocratic sympathies, and evidenced by the fact Trump policies have not had an appreciable or statistically significant impact on the working class. Much of the data touted by the WH is heavily sugarcoated, as has been posted with factual reference numerous times here. They use only the rosiest unemployment calculation, the U-3, whereas the more accurate and inclusive U-6 is gradually flattening out at the 2001 level of about 7%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3B

They also routinely tout wage gains, but the WH and WH-friendly press only quote gains in nominal hourly wage, which doesn't consider inflation or cost of living increases. Adjusting for those, the real wage gains of workers not in high positions are not impressive, pegged to an average of a little over 1% over the last 3 years. All an opponent of Trump needs to do is show these graphs during a campaign commercial or debate.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3G

Since you love to analyze data so much, how does that compare to Obama using those exact same metrics? Or is that not interesting to you?

MaverickM11 wrote:

I thought this thread was going to be about something *completely* different after last night...

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Since when is Congress empowered to set or reset drug prices? Are consumers and doctors too stupid to decide their value? Is that in Art. 1, Section 8?

LOL wut. What is the price of a dialysis treatment? One Tylenol pill in a hospital? A lymphoma chemo treatment? A hip replacement?

I can't believe anyone would say that with a straight face.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Democrats have themselves to blame for the chaos on these primaries. They have become too 'woke', and they have basically cancelled themselves by setting so high standards on politics, turns out no one is perfect and most have baggage and issues that would go against 'woke' values. They are attacking themselves for the same standards they have set on themselves. Its pretty amusing and great for TV.

This is what is interesting with 'woke politics', we saw it in Canada with their PM doing blackface (even though he won), no politician is going to be perfect enough.

Boomer says what? Just because you and your republican buds love and prioritize stop-'n-frisk minorities, almost as much as you love don't-hire-minorities, don't-employ-minorities, don't-rent-to-minorities, and don't-allow-minority-students, doesn't mean anyone opposed to that is pushing "woke politics". It means they are pushing for everyone to succeed.

First off, not boomer, not even 40 yet. Second, no point in continue debate just on personal attacks. So much for tolerance and being 'woke'. If you wish to include 'everyone' on anything start by respecting other people's views and stop stereotyping and name calling for shutting down debate.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

I thought this thread was going to be about something *completely* different after last night...

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Since when is Congress empowered to set or reset drug prices? Are consumers and doctors too stupid to decide their value? Is that in Art. 1, Section 8?

LOL wut. What is the price of a dialysis treatment? One Tylenol pill in a hospital? A lymphoma chemo treatment? A hip replacement?

I can't believe anyone would say that with a straight face.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Democrats have themselves to blame for the chaos on these primaries. They have become too 'woke', and they have basically cancelled themselves by setting so high standards on politics, turns out no one is perfect and most have baggage and issues that would go against 'woke' values. They are attacking themselves for the same standards they have set on themselves. Its pretty amusing and great for TV.

This is what is interesting with 'woke politics', we saw it in Canada with their PM doing blackface (even though he won), no politician is going to be perfect enough.

Boomer says what? Just because you and your republican buds love and prioritize stop-'n-frisk minorities, almost as much as you love don't-hire-minorities, don't-employ-minorities, don't-rent-to-minorities, and don't-allow-minority-students, doesn't mean anyone opposed to that is pushing "woke politics". It means they are pushing for everyone to succeed.

First off, not boomer, not even 40 yet. Second, no point in continue debate just on personal attacks. So much for tolerance and being 'woke'. If you wish to include 'everyone' on anything start by respecting other people's views and stop stereotyping and name calling for shutting down debate.

What is there to tolerate? Your endless whining about "woke politics" while ignoring your own muslim ban, trans ban, increased segregation at HUD, incessant immigrant bashing, waffling on Brown v Board of Education, and on and on and on? You're right I don't tolerate that. You're making good on your own tagline: “In my experience eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles.” There's nothing to debate until you account for your own "non woke" politics from your imaginary, self appointed high horse.

stl07 wrote:

So the new buzz phrase among Trump and Dem. candidates is that Bloomberg is buying his way into the election. Funny enough though, all those cracky fools have rich corporate backers buying them their own influence into the election (apart from Sanders and maybe warren). I would rather have somebody self fund their campaign then get it from others since at least Bloomberg has nobody to answer to.

Yes, our campaign finance laws are horrible. We need to get money out of politics. The biggest difference between Bloomberg and the other candidates is that the other candidates are using public funding and raising money from donors. From the small donations from Joe American to the very wealthy elite. Money talks. Yes, candidates will listen to those who give them more. Just like, as has been pointed out, big pharma makes a donation to one person and they get their way. The system is broken. The candidates who point that out and still accept large contributions are hypocrites, as is Bloomberg. At least Democrats point out the system is broken. Even if nothing will change.

I keep hearing folks say x is too progressive.

What is the point if both candidates have basically the same policies?.

seb146 wrote:

The candidates who point that out and still accept large contributions are hypocrites, as is Bloomberg. At least Democrats point out the system is broken. Even if nothing will change.

I think the biggest gripe (at least for me) is that the goal posts seem to move quite often.

-Don't accept SuperPAC money
-Good, no SuperPACs but you're still getting money from corporations (EVIL because you're beholden to them)
-Good, no corporation money either, but you're receiving money from rich people
-Good, no money from rich people...but you're rich so you can't be here.

Rich people like Bloomberg can actually make the election a massive headache, especially with someone like Sanders as the nominee. The vilifying of people who are successful and are using their own means to campaign should be discouraged; they can flip the script and say that Democrats don't like it when people are successful, which is why they want to tax your wealth and put a cap on what you make (i.e. class warfare).

The policies that the progressive wing fights for are noble (healthcare, education, etc.), but the idea to tax successful people way more just because they can afford it is ludicrous and, IMO, discourages people from trying to be successful on their own. Now, the idea that a company should reserve up to 20% ownership for employees is also ridiculous. If I were the sole owner of a large company, why should I be forced to give up 20% ownership to employees? And when is enough enough? Today it's 20%...tomorrow, it could be 40% because 20% is too little.

In other words: I want (a little bit of) what you have and will force you to hand it over.

einsteinboricua wrote:

seb146 wrote:

The candidates who point that out and still accept large contributions are hypocrites, as is Bloomberg. At least Democrats point out the system is broken. Even if nothing will change.

I think the biggest gripe (at least for me) is that the goal posts seem to move quite often.

-Don't accept SuperPAC money
-Good, no SuperPACs but you're still getting money from corporations (EVIL because you're beholden to them)
-Good, no corporation money either, but you're receiving money from rich people
-Good, no money from rich people...but you're rich so you can't be here.

Rich people like Bloomberg can actually make the election a massive headache, especially with someone like Sanders as the nominee. The vilifying of people who are successful and are using their own means to campaign should be discouraged; they can flip the script and say that Democrats don't like it when people are successful, which is why they want to tax your wealth and put a cap on what you make (i.e. class warfare).

The policies that the progressive wing fights for are noble (healthcare, education, etc.), but the idea to tax successful people way more just because they can afford it is ludicrous and, IMO, discourages people from trying to be successful on their own. Now, the idea that a company should reserve up to 20% ownership for employees is also ridiculous. If I were the sole owner of a large company, why should I be forced to give up 20% ownership to employees? And when is enough enough? Today it's 20%...tomorrow, it could be 40% because 20% is too little.

In other words: I want (a little bit of) what you have and will force you to hand it over.

I don't think the goal posts have been moved so much as Democrats are realizing huge change does not happen immediately. It has to come in small steps. There are goals the progressive wing is moving toward, like affordable health care for all, affordable education for all, overturning Citizens United but they are realizing it does not happen quickly at all.

We had higher taxes on the wealthy before. It worked out well for everyone. The rich got richer and the poor got richer. I think offering employees partial ownership of a company is a great idea. It gives employees incentive to make their company better and see an actual reward for their hard work and effort. Unlike now, when they MIGHT get a pat on the back once or twice a year. But, with companies in control of the government, that is not going to happen.

Much of the service industry is like that. The suits set a goal, that goal is either met or exceeded and those who met or exceeded the goal are told "why didn't you do more?" or "that's okay but try harder next year" and see no other benefits. What would it do for productivity and morale if employees got an extra $50 for meeting or exceeding the goals?

einsteinboricua wrote:

IMO, discourages people from trying to be successful on their own.

This is unlikely to be true. It is notable that this is an inexpensive talking point for the Fox Crowd, and it is not hard to see how that sort of sentiment gets a response, as there is a visceral appeal to it. But it just does not stand up to the light of day. Better is always better. At the age of 40, I now pay roughly two and a third times in income tax what my entire income at the age of 30 was. I do get the appeal of complaining about it, but the unmitigable fact is that is that I would never consider going back to being some regular person just because taxes are less expensive that way.

And I do not believe that is anecdotal either. Plenty of people aspire to better their lot in life no matter what the tax burden is.

So the focus needs to be on what we get for that. If we let the mouth-breathers focus on buzz-words and scary facebook pictures of probably not actual Venezuela, yes, they will make their point. But if we make it clear that this is money that will already be spent anyway -and that is true- should it not be on things we see a benefit from, then we have a much more solid case.

I would agree we need to do a much better job controlling that conversation.

Just in very real terms, I speak for a lot of people when I say I will not be changing my work habits just because someone wants to improve the general condition of the US for the people that live there.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Today it's 20%...tomorrow, it could be 40% because 20% is too little.

For what it is worth, Slippery Slope arguments rarely, if ever, have any basis in reality. So there is that. . .

bennett123 wrote:

I keep hearing folks say x is too progressive.

What is the point if both candidates have basically the same policies?.

One is not a sitting Russian agent

TTailedTiger wrote:

stl07 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Do you honestly not understand that your competitors are going to take any shot at you that they can? It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to get attention. And Bloomberg is not a champion of minorities. Did you miss his comments about the black community and trans people? He only apologized because he was caught.

Nobody said he's a champion. He's just more socially liberal than Trump. And not impeached and corrupted. He's no angel, but he's not a socialist nor is he a sitting Russian/Qatari agent

I don't see how anyone can claim to be a fan of aviation and be a Democrat. Not when you have people like AOC who do their best to hurt the industry. Install a liberal president and Congress and her squad will push through all sorts of crippling legislation.

I don't know, all I know is that no matter how left we go, it will be better than selling our country's integrity to foreign powers like Trump is doing right now. Look at how much foreign governments are spending at Trump resorts and compare it to their sudden acquittals like Saudi after killing our American journalist or Qatar airways with Trump suddenly siding with them against DL (not that I'm complaining, I love QR).

And BTW, I don't give a shit about AOC since she isn't my congresswoman and neither should you unless you live under her in NYC. I don't understand why the "right" (at this point, what even is that) cares so much about one powerless politician in a field of over 500 congressmen. She has her crazy ideas, good for her, they will never impact me unless I move to NYC.

Aaron747 wrote:

Neither, as evidenced by your point about Bloomberg's plutocratic sympathies, and evidenced by the fact Trump policies have not had an appreciable or statistically significant impact on the working class. Much of the data touted by the WH is heavily sugarcoated, as has been posted with factual reference numerous times here. They use only the rosiest unemployment calculation, the U-3, whereas the more accurate and inclusive U-6 is gradually flattening out at the 2001 level of about 7%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3B

pot-kettle-black.

Care to mention how those numbers compare with 2016?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

IMO, discourages people from trying to be successful on their own.

This is unlikely to be true.

What is my motivation to come up with the next version of Amazon or Facebook or Google if initially everyone likes it and once its grows and I'm raking millions I get hounded because:
1. I make too much, despite that I could be paying my tax rate and more, including donating to charity and other causes
2. I'm worth too much, despite the fact that a majority of that wealth could be locked up in the stock market and other tangible items and not liquid
3. I decide I want to spend MY money on whatever I want (if I buy a Mercedes I'm too opulent; if I buy a Camry, I'm mocking the middle class)
4. I get government officials proposing they break up my company because of reasons (like they've threatened with Amazon and Facebook...as if those were the only e-commerce and social media sites in the country).

Should corporations pay taxes? YES
Should rich people pay a higher share/rate? YES
After all of this, should we still find ways to extract more money from them? NO.
Should we break up giants like the Big 4 techs? No...why?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

For what it is worth, Slippery Slope arguments rarely, if ever, have any basis in reality.

Probably because they rarely get tested. But given that the argument has not been around controlling spending, but rather increasing revenue to fund other programs, it's only rational to think that the "give an inch and they'll take a mile" idiom has merit here. Notice that I have yet to hear plans to rein in spending. Everything always is "if we can spend trillions on war, we can spend this on healthcare", and not "let's reduce spending across the board to accommodate these programs". With Boomers retiring and GenXers next in line, entitlements will require more revenue. Today, we ask the rich to pay X% rate. Is that still going to be enough 10-15 years down the line, especially if a recession happens and taxes have to be cut to spur spending?

einsteinboricua wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

IMO, discourages people from trying to be successful on their own.

This is unlikely to be true.

What is my motivation to come up with the next version of Amazon or Facebook or Google if initially everyone likes it and once its grows and I'm raking millions I get hounded because:
1. I make too much, despite that I could be paying my tax rate and more, including donating to charity and other causes
2. I'm worth too much, despite the fact that a majority of that wealth could be locked up in the stock market and other tangible items and not liquid
3. I decide I want to spend MY money on whatever I want (if I buy a Mercedes I'm too opulent; if I buy a Camry, I'm mocking the middle class)
4. I get government officials proposing they break up my company because of reasons (like they've threatened with Amazon and Facebook...as if those were the only e-commerce and social media sites in the country).

Should corporations pay taxes? YES
Should rich people pay a higher share/rate? YES
After all of this, should we still find ways to extract more money from them? NO.
Should we break up giants like the Big 4 techs? No...why?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

For what it is worth, Slippery Slope arguments rarely, if ever, have any basis in reality.

Probably because they rarely get tested. But given that the argument has not been around controlling spending, but rather increasing revenue to fund other programs, it's only rational to think that the "give an inch and they'll take a mile" idiom has merit here. Notice that I have yet to hear plans to rein in spending. Everything always is "if we can spend trillions on war, we can spend this on healthcare", and not "let's reduce spending across the board to accommodate these programs". With Boomers retiring and GenXers next in line, entitlements will require more revenue. Today, we ask the rich to pay X% rate. Is that still going to be enough 10-15 years down the line, especially if a recession happens and taxes have to be cut to spur spending?

You always word things more eloquently than I. Agree with most of what you're saying (in this thread and others.)

I still contend that Bloomberg is buying the election. Not saying he shouldn't be able to run or he made too much, I just think his level of support and %s in polls is WAY to high for someone that has barely done anything this campaign. Almost all he has done was spend money.

As you said, though, we shouldn't villainize wealthy people. We can debate what is a fair share but actively going to war with them is probably not gonna end well for our 2020 prospects

PS: The Game

mham001 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Neither, as evidenced by your point about Bloomberg's plutocratic sympathies, and evidenced by the fact Trump policies have not had an appreciable or statistically significant impact on the working class. Much of the data touted by the WH is heavily sugarcoated, as has been posted with factual reference numerous times here. They use only the rosiest unemployment calculation, the U-3, whereas the more accurate and inclusive U-6 is gradually flattening out at the 2001 level of about 7%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3B

pot-kettle-black.

Care to mention how those numbers compare with 2016?

I assume you know how to read a graph - and also understand the concept of reference points and values? Then you can see they maintain the trendline set post-Lehman/AIG. Duh.

And there’s no pot-kettle-black here. I have criticized any administration’s use of misleading claims that don’t align with available data.

Speaking about hypocrisy from Democratic candidates:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign denounced big money’s growing role in the Democratic primary in a statement Wednesday — but stopped short of specifically calling for the shutdown of Persist PAC, a new pro-Warren super PAC, after the group popped up with a major ad campaign benefiting her.

The new super PAC has reserved nearly $800,000 in TV and radio advertising so far in Nevada, according to Advertising Analytics, becoming the biggest outside advertiser in the state before Saturday’s Democratic caucuses. The group’s arrival challenges a core tenet of Warren’s political career: her condemnations of big money and its influence on politics. Her arguments about the corrupting influence of big money have been a centerpiece of her presidential campaign, and Warren wrote in 2019 that she would shun in-person campaign fundraisers in order to separate herself from wealthy donors’ influence.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/1 ... ing-116015

afcjets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Neither, as evidenced by your point about Bloomberg's plutocratic sympathies, and evidenced by the fact Trump policies have not had an appreciable or statistically significant impact on the working class. Much of the data touted by the WH is heavily sugarcoated, as has been posted with factual reference numerous times here. They use only the rosiest unemployment calculation, the U-3, whereas the more accurate and inclusive U-6 is gradually flattening out at the 2001 level of about 7%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3B

They also routinely tout wage gains, but the WH and WH-friendly press only quote gains in nominal hourly wage, which doesn't consider inflation or cost of living increases. Adjusting for those, the real wage gains of workers not in high positions are not impressive, pegged to an average of a little over 1% over the last 3 years. All an opponent of Trump needs to do is show these graphs during a campaign commercial or debate.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3G

Since you love to analyze data so much, how does that compare to Obama using those exact same metrics? Or is that not interesting to you?

The parameters of the average weekly real wage graph were set to include the 44 years. As you can see, 44’s second term isn’t significantly different from 45’s with real wage gains more or less pegged to an average near 1%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3G

So as you can see, it’s statistically impossible for the WH to claim they are presiding over historic wage gains for the working class. Nothing but manipulative lies for those too dumb to check what reality says.

Aaron747 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Neither, as evidenced by your point about Bloomberg's plutocratic sympathies, and evidenced by the fact Trump policies have not had an appreciable or statistically significant impact on the working class. Much of the data touted by the WH is heavily sugarcoated, as has been posted with factual reference numerous times here. They use only the rosiest unemployment calculation, the U-3, whereas the more accurate and inclusive U-6 is gradually flattening out at the 2001 level of about 7%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3B

They also routinely tout wage gains, but the WH and WH-friendly press only quote gains in nominal hourly wage, which doesn't consider inflation or cost of living increases. Adjusting for those, the real wage gains of workers not in high positions are not impressive, pegged to an average of a little over 1% over the last 3 years. All an opponent of Trump needs to do is show these graphs during a campaign commercial or debate.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3G

Since you love to analyze data so much, how does that compare to Obama using those exact same metrics? Or is that not interesting to you?

The parameters of the average weekly real wage graph were set to include the 44 years. As you can see, 44’s second term isn’t significantly different from 45’s with real wage gains more or less pegged to an average near 1%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3G

So as you can see, it’s statistically impossible for the WH to claim they are presiding over historic wage gains for the working class. Nothing but manipulative lies for those too dumb to check what reality says.

U3 vs U6 Obama vs. Trump?

afcjets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Since you love to analyze data so much, how does that compare to Obama using those exact same metrics? Or is that not interesting to you?

The parameters of the average weekly real wage graph were set to include the 44 years. As you can see, 44’s second term isn’t significantly different from 45’s with real wage gains more or less pegged to an average near 1%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=qc3G

So as you can see, it’s statistically impossible for the WH to claim they are presiding over historic wage gains for the working class. Nothing but manipulative lies for those too dumb to check what reality says.

U3 vs U6 Obama vs. Trump?

My reply to another poster regarding the U-6 trendlines is a couple posts back. No surprises in that graph. Can the WH claim they have done a good job of continuing the post-2009 trendline? Yes. Can they claim their policies have produced historic REAL unemployment for U-6? No - the trendline is only just now matching 2000/2001 levels.

A more interesting question if they were still bothering to hold press conferences is: why do you only report nominal hourly wage gains when average weekly wages and wages minus inflation/CPI are more accurate measures of how the working class is doing?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Speaking about hypocrisy from Democratic candidates:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign denounced big money’s growing role in the Democratic primary in a statement Wednesday — but stopped short of specifically calling for the shutdown of Persist PAC, a new pro-Warren super PAC, after the group popped up with a major ad campaign benefiting her.

The new super PAC has reserved nearly $800,000 in TV and radio advertising so far in Nevada, according to Advertising Analytics, becoming the biggest outside advertiser in the state before Saturday’s Democratic caucuses. The group’s arrival challenges a core tenet of Warren’s political career: her condemnations of big money and its influence on politics. Her arguments about the corrupting influence of big money have been a centerpiece of her presidential campaign, and Warren wrote in 2019 that she would shun in-person campaign fundraisers in order to separate herself from wealthy donors’ influence.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/1 ... ing-116015

I'm not a Warren fan but I feel for her and candidates on this issue.

You can be against something strongly (money in politics) yet realize you're at an impossible disadvantage by not playing by the rules of everyone else.

You just have to be very honest and open about it.

And it makes me admire people like Bernie that really do shun big money... While I think he goes too far in a lot of areas, I think he's one of the most genuine politicians we have