"The more zealous the attacks, the greater the risk he turns his campaign ATM against them. They're already struggling to catch up with Sanders in national support and campaign dollars. Turning their focus toward Bloomberg only complicates that task. There's another risk, at least for the moderates: Weakening the one who may be best poised to stop Sanders, a democratic socialist, if they fail themselves.... By not competing in the four early states, Bloomberg has gone basically unchallenged, allowing him to define himself without interference or really any debate. This has made him a top-tier candidate and the only one with the certain cash to run to the end."
Axios summarizes.
It's crazy that Bloomberg has achieved such status in the race without exposing his candidate skills to the people. We have no idea what impression he will make on a debate stage, which will be crucial for challenging Trump. Bloomberg has stood back and watched so many of the Democratic candidates drop out, candidates who had to try to stand out in a debate and couldn't make it in a heavy crowd. Now, the crowd has thinned out, and everyone left is running out of money. And here's Mike, with endless money and still waiting to go on stage.
Will he even be in the next debate, which is this Wednesday? The DNC changed the qualification rules to help Bloomberg. They got rid of the requirement of a number of donors. But he needs some number of polls putting him over 10%, and the latest info I can find, here, says he's still one short. It's funny, because I was just checking for new polls at Real Clear Politics, and there hasn't been anything new since last Friday and no new national poll since last Wednesday. The most recent national poll surveyed people from 2/9 to 2/11. That seems odd, doesn't it? Are polls being held back? I remember before the Iowa caucus, the Des Moines Register held back its poll.
I wonder if the Democrats aren't getting themselves into terrible trouble over Mike Bloomberg. I like listening to "Morning Joe" on my car radio as I drive back home after my sunrise run. This is a 5 minute drive and about all I can tolerate, but it's good for giving me a sense of what Democrats are freaking out about at the moment. Today, they were tormenting themselves over Mike Bloomberg. He's got race-and-gender problems, but so did Trump. He's a billionaire, but so is Trump. If Trump did it, shouldn't that mean Bloomberg can do it?
I don't think they've faced up to why Trump was able to do what he did. Without first giving Trump credit, they're in no position to say so then Mike can do it too. It sounded to me as though they think of Trump as evidence that weird magic things happen. So, why not Mike? At the very least, they should recognize that Trump had a powerful skill in knocking down rivals on the debate stage, and Bloomberg has yet to set foot on the stage. It's crazy to forsake all others for Bloomberg.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४३ टिप्पण्या:
243 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»If Bloomberg is a viable candidate it's only because the competition is so pathetic.
If it ends up being the Donald vs Bloomburg, what would even be the point of voting? Oligarch vs oligarch.
So the headline will read, "Despite spending millions, Bloomberg is still short."
You pick the good oligarch over the bad oligarch.
Of course I want to see the Dems fail and destroy themselves from within, but it is about time one Dem really challenged another Dem. They all basically agree about most policy issues and - to me - they all look crazy.
The Green New Deal would destroy America. So-called moderate Middle Class Joe is basically for it.
Pete, however, has distinguished himself for calling for decriminalizing ALL drugs and eliminating the Electoral College. Two truly insane policies from a failed small town mayor.
There's not a dime's worth of policy difference with these candidates so they have to resort to superficial differences like race, age, wealth and sex.
In a way, this is all good for the country. When Trump wins in a landslide the Dems will know they were totally defeated and America has completed rejected them.
Democrats don't care if an old white billionaire buys their election and steals it away from Bernie once again. As for Bernie, he'll get another lake house.
Althouse says she listens to Morning Joe on her daily 5 minute drive which gives her "..a sense of what Democrats are freaking out about at the moment."
They seem to be in a perpetual state of "freaked-out".
"It's crazy to forsake all others for Bloomberg."
Not really. The DNC needs Bloomberg's money for all the down-ballot races. They know that Sanders at the top would hand the Congress to the Republicans. They also know that none of the other candidates has a chance to derail Sanders. The only thing that might stop him is another heart attack.
Bloomberg won't be on the debate stage, it would hurt him more than help him.
Fascinating to the see the sudden torrent of pro-Bloomberg columns in the MSM. They have their marching orders.
The DNC will do whatever is needed to get to a brokered convention, where they can hand the crown to Bloomberg. i doubt he will beat Trump, but he will stymie Republican gains elsewhere.
This is especially important this election, with apportionment coming up.
Why must they weigh the cost of attacking their opponent? Bloomberg is weak, and he's not donating to them. Attack him. If they fear the attacks will make him weaker in the General election, then attack him now before he makes it that far. Heck, have you cake and eat it too, by pointing out Bloomberg implemented these racist policies as a Republican.
Still, Bloomberg is not Trump. Bloomberg is doing well, because he can afford to buy name recognition (something Buttigieg and Klobuchar can't, but Biden had). Bloomberg's name recognition isn't the same as Trump's brand.
Bernie will go after Bloomberg. The rest don’t have the guts. Bloomberg pays their salaries.
Bloomberg talks down to people, Trump doesn't. Example
"Bloomberg implied that anyone could be a farmer because it requires a low-level of intelligence to be successful.
I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer.
It's a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that. Then we had 300 years of the industrial society. You put the piece of metal on the lathe, you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow and you can have a job. And we created a lot of jobs. At one point, 98 percent of the world worked in agriculture; today it's 2 percent in the United States.
Now comes the information economy. And the information economy is fundamentally different because it's built around replacing people with technology and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze, and that is a whole degree level different. You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter."
Bannon is convinced it’s a bait and switch of the Clintons, by the Clintons and for the Clintons. That makes sense , because Bloomie doesn’t’ want to serve as President. He’s a king maker. Trump works at making America great 24/7. Bloomie serves his money first global cabal that quit seeing National borders long ago.
I think Trump won because, fundamentally, he likes America and Americans. The Democratic party seems to be going after the votes of those who don't really like this country very much. None of the candidates has much to say about America that's positive. Along comes Bloomberg, who basically does seem to like this country. What to do? I wonder how much anti-American nonsense he will have to sign on to if he gets the nomination. He's already agreed that the Deplorables shouldn't have guns. Will he agree to kill their jobs and industries too?
The debate stage is the only place where they can beat him. They can’t out-spend him. He can always hire better campaign staff. From what I have seen of their commercials, they can’t defeat him on the air waves. But the DNC is in a conundrum of their own making. They used a strict application of their criteria to chase out all their non-white candidates, now they plan to change the rules after the non-white candidates are gone. Most black and Latino voters are used to being what on by the Democrats, but some will have reached their limit.
"The more zealous the attacks, the greater the risk he turns his campaign ATM against them."
Perhaps more importantly, at least to the DNC: the greater the risk he'll shut off the spigot in other states. He bought VA; what if he could buy FL? Or PA? Can't piss off the little bastard too much!
At some point, the frequency of Bloomberg ads may lose more votes than it gains.
I don't think you read The Intercept, but this article on Bloomberg buying up all of the campaign staffers and canvassers from lower level campaigns is interesting.
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/13/bloomberg-spending-local-state-campaigns/
This is the inverse of ACORN and Obama for America that Obama used to win the 2008 primaries.
@wendybar, I had read that, too. And Bloomberg has no idea what it’s like on a successful modern farm. Farmers are on their computers a lot, and the farms themselves are highly automated.
Typical ignorant, arrogant, city dweller.
They're trapped. They know that Sanders is going to win the plurality of delegates if nothing is done, because the more moderate candidates get in each other's way. They desperately need all the moderate candidates to coalesce into one, right now.
They're trying to game out what makes that most likely. Will the addition of Bloomberg make all the moderate candidates give up? Or will it just split the moderate vote further?
Of course, it adds a new issue: Bloomberg is the only candidate that the Sanders bloc will absolutely never support, even to beat Trump. So they need to coalesce the moderate candidates and then have Bloomberg get out of the way. Somehow.
Bannon is convinced it’s a bait and switch of the Clintons, by the Clintons and for the Clintons.
Won't work. Hillary was already damaged by the (accurate) perception that she got some behind-the-scenes help to win the nomination in 2016. Imagine the reaction if she waltzed into the nomination behind some machinations by Bloomberg and the DNC. That would be the suicide of the Democratic party.
Personally I think their best chance is just to hope that Bernie Sanders wins the general, and just support him. But I'm guessing that a lot of very liberal very rich Democrats know in their hearts that Bernie Sanders is going to destroy them as President. They need to make sure he doesn't win, even if they lose as a result.
Most black and Latino voters are used to being shat on by the Democrats
Effing autocorrect must have been programmed by an effing Democrat!
Bloomberg's TV ads are very good. Pretty much content free, but we'll done. Professional actor doing the narration.
Yesterday I was out in my car and heard one of his radio ads. Bloomberg speaking himself. Not good. Bloomberg has a very New York Jewish speaking voice. I don't see it going over well ourside of the Northeast.
We still like our presidents Christian but not too religious.
I think Trump won because, fundamentally, he likes America and Americans.
Spot-on! And Americans seem divided among themselves between America lovers and America haters.
"Bannon is convinced it’s a bait and switch of the Clintons..." I read Bannon last week and thought the idea that MB wants to be king-maker (why would he want to be President?) was intriguing. If there is a deadlocked convention, MB will have accrued so much power (and his money will be so vital to retaining the House) that he probably can name the candidate. But why would it be HC? That's not who I would pick to beat Trump.
"Bloomberg has no idea what it’s like on a successful modern farm."
And it's not like it just happened overnight, either. My aunt and uncle owned a large farm in the Texas panhandle long before the digital revolution. I remember sitting in my aunt's kitchen over thirty years ago, drinking coffee, and listening to this unassuming little old country lady absolutely school her commodities broker over the phone. See, running a large farm is a series of significant logistical and financial challenges, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Successful farmers master those challenges.
Farmers are on their computers a lot, and the farms themselves are highly automated.
Keeping farm machinery working is why the US auto industry was largely in the Midwest.
Shorter Democrat dilemma:
"We hate Bloomberg, but love his money!"
morning joke, is on the radio, that is unintentionally entertaining,
MikeR said...
I'm guessing that a lot of very liberal very rich Democrats know in their hearts that Bernie Sanders is going to destroy them...
Bernie isn't going to destroy wealthy Democrats. He'll be an annoyance, no bigger than a fly. They know how to protect themselves and their wealth from socialism. They won't really care if Bernie screws over the middle and working classes, which is mostly what socialism is about anyway.
This appears to be an interesting experiment in governing coming up. Can a super rich man buy an election ?
Bloomberg is not a good speaker and seems like an obnoxious little twit. He did manage to buy the 2018 House election and the VA legislature.
Will that last ? I dunno. I guess we'll see.
I think Bloomberg may be the only candidate who could make for an interesting contest. For example, there's already some content being spread around re his opinions on the causes of the '08 crash. As it implicates the CRA, it's of course supposed to be "racist", and hence something for which he'll be hammered and which will weaken him. Would it? Would the Trump campaign attack him on that score?
I don't think that would be wise, but I'm curious if and how it would be used. What does Bloomberg have to say about, e.g, Fed easy money policy, of which we know Trump is a fan? Don't know, but it would be nice for a change to see candidates maneuvering around subjects like this, instead of the usual woke bullshit we're supposed to think is so terribly important.
Not that I have any intention of voting for Bloomberg.
Bernie isn't going to destroy wealthy Democrats.
Bernie is a fraud. Read Schweizer's book.
If Bloomberg's more elitist nonsense wasn't decades old, I'd be convinced he was a Trump plant designed to destroy the Rat base for a generation. As it is, the greed of the party might actually outweigh their venality. Not enough to cause Sanders to actually lose, mind you, but enough to cause the election to be stolen.
running a large farm is a series of significant logistical and financial challenges, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Successful farmers master those challenges.
I remember my father talking about this. Back in the 1920s, one of the farm families my grandfather knew in central Illinois sent their son to college. The other farmers thought they were crazy. "Go to college to learn how to farm? What a crazy idea." His descendants own all the farms that my ancestors used to farm. Agricultural colleges made the phenomenon of 2% feeding the country plus exporting the excess.
The malignant midget puts the Dems in a catch-22. They can allow him to buy the Dem nomination but then their base of young radicals and University ethos would be demoralized but their wealthy and suburban voters will be pleased.
Or they can tar him as a racist billionaire villain and keep their young base happy but then they are stuck with Sanders and almost certainly a disaster at the polling booth.
Ahhaahahahahah
he'll deny the cra commentary, I'm just guessing, he's basically endorsed the whole prog catechism.
That's right Doc Mike. The land grant farm/agricultural college explosion across the United States is one of the greatest successes of socialism American style.
We need to do 2 things: (1) Bolster Blue Collar Joe for a rebound win in South Carolina to forestall the Bloomberg $$ tsunami and (2) root for Crazy Bernie.
If the Dem race comes down to those two flawed candidates, while Bloomberg falters, life will be good.
they really didn't think this strategy out did they,
I think he's smart to keep himself above The fray detached from all these little people who are going to burnout crash stumble offstage into the cold vacuum of anonymony
If Mike needs a poll, he can just buy one. He simply tells one of his media organizations to do one and "make sure I win it."
It's exactly the kind of guy he is. Means, motive, opportunity.
Would it be illegal for Bloomberg to offer each of them $100 million to drop out?
Let's see: the incumbent candidate flies all over the midwest, and literally hugs his supporters. This guy holds flyover country in contempt. And he's their last hope? Trump's most formidable challenger? I don't see it.
Lunch Bucket Joe!
We all know by now that if the Democrats want something, there are no rules or principles that will stop them. They will change whatever rules are needed or just break them outright. Bloomberg has the means to make them pay for doing that against him though.
Mike has promised to support whoever gets the nomination. That will keep them in their place. He controls people with money: employees, the media, candidates.
Trump had issues that appeal to more voters in the states that matter for an electoral college victory. Let's start with the issues.
Democratics have issues that people hate. Issues like men competing against women in sports.
Bannon is convinced it’s a bait and switch of the Clintons, by the Clintons and for the Clintons
rehajm is also convinced. Lefties, and especially mainstream media lefties have the self important belief that people accept what the media sells to them. Narratives. I suppose it has always been that way but it seems more blatant today. Perhaps we've just seen them run the play so many times their moves are telegraphed. Obama threatens Boehner with 'going to the American people' if you don't give me what I want. The Kavanaugh farce. The Ukraine farce. The impeachment farce...
As for the primaries it's easy to forget they are a bit of unofficial farce. Contrivances. Normally a parade for the next in line or a couple of options but the fighting is usually over shortly after New Hampshire.
It doesn't work if the next in line is a sociopath who's time has come and gone and come and gone, has no skills in retial politics, and has demonstrated experience in squandering advantages....
So you put your people in place and craft new narratives...
"That's right Doc Mike. The land grant farm/agricultural college explosion across the United States is one of the greatest successes of socialism American style. "
Typical. Take something that is NOT socialism and claim it as socialist. I guess you have to do that when there are so few actual socialist success stories.
narciso: he'll deny the cra commentary, I'm just guessing, he's basically endorsed the whole prog catechism.
Yeah, that would probably be the way to bet, narc. Too bad, nothing but boring in the forecast.
"It's crazy that Bloomberg has achieved such status in the race without exposing his candidate skills to the people."
His "candidate skills" are all in his big...wallet.
Howard thinks all education is Socialist. Well , maybe that is what they teach at Harvard now that China funds it.
Unlike Hillary, Mike is not "likable enough".
Please God let the Nevada Dems use the same App as the Iowa caucus. Or, even better, reject and replace the Iowa App with a more confusing App.
No more caucus Apps!
So I guess private money was used to establish all of these agricultural colleges not government money. Also there has been no government money involved in the US agricultural system that is the envy of the entire world. Agricultural subsidies is what floats flyover country. You see that's why us libtards can't take you people seriously because you are the biggest beneficiaries of American socialism. You suck the taxes out of the coastal liberal elite blue counties to fund your fake country lifestyle.
This is OT, but why do you need to drive five minutes to go running? It's like folks who have to get the best parking spot at the gym. Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
well you saw how they can't do a hand count, from the review forms,
You're absolutely correct Mike. Government subsidies of tuition, infrastructure and research grants are what has provided higher education to be lower and middle-class thereby strengthening the capitalist economic engine that rules the world. Didn't they teach you about yin and yang in your Chinese medicine classes?
When my kids were at Harvard all of their education and research and salaries we're paid for by the DOD, the NIH and the NSF.
Angle-Dyne, I agree that there are matters on which Bloomberg could successfully challenge Trump but these are matters in which Dem voters have little or no interest. Of course I'm voting Trump but I'm hoping that Rand Paul will run in 2024.
The only constituency for Bloomberg is the anybody-but-Trump group. There are a lot of them, but not enough to win, and Trump is gradually winning over more and more among all the remaining groups. I think that by election time there will be a very strong meme out there that only stupid or tragically partisan people would vote against Trump and extending his successes. The successes are still going to be rolling in between now and then. I don't quite know how he does it, but he has a gift for winning. Maybe it's "tiger's blood."
It's crazy that Bloomberg has achieved such status in the race without exposing his candidate skills to the people.
Namely testing whether women like him.
Um, Rand Paul needs to go on testosterone and weight training and to a straight Barber to fix his girly curly mop before he can even think about running for president.
But he needs a number of polls putting him over 10%, and the latest info I can find, here, says he's still one short.
(Rimshot)
Bloomberg is viable for the same reason that we had an impeachment: Namely, the slate of Democratic candidates is abysmal.
Memeorandum links to Althouse; Althouse links to Memeorandum. So is Ann responding to the news of the day, or is the news of the day responding to Ann?
"The more zealous the attacks, the greater the risk he turns his campaign ATM against them.
Boo hoo. They all want to be President, but they don't know what to do.
I mean, sure, they are all for fundamentally transforming the country once they've been given complete power.
But this decision whether to attack Bloomberg or not has real consequences for them.
Let’s not let Howard-the-educated-fool hijack this thread with his dorm room bull session theories, shall we? Particularly when the only job he’s fit to do on a modern farm is muck out the cattle barn — at least the barns where this is not already automated.
Ha, ha. Those candidates thought the primary kabuki actually meant something :)
The real effect of Bloomberg is not to win the Presidency, but to show the utter ineptitude of the Democrat field.
He's like the kid who fake punches to watch them flinch, then laughs and walks away.
Any one of them who could defeat Trump should have already wiped the floor with Bloomie.
Ergo, he's already shown he's their only hope.
It is going to be pretty difficult for Morgan Freeman to do a soulful voiceover documentary at the DNC for Bloomberg.
"He was born an upper middle class Jewish child with a housekeeper"
Howard said...
Um, Rand Paul needs to go on testosterone and weight training and to a straight Barber to fix his girly curly mop before he can even think about running for president.
2/17/20, 9:43 AM
Now do Bernie.
One of the cool things ab out Little Mike is that he is sucking the oxygen out of the air for ALL Democrats in ALL races.
He is paying staffers twice the going rate and poaching campaign experts from House and Senate candidates. If they can't keep staff, it is going to be hard to get traction.
Every ad he buys is one less slot that is available for anyone else. What happens when House/Senate/Gov candidates can't buy airtime? Or, if they can, it is so expensive that they can only buy half as much as they'd like to?
Is Bloomie going to be going round the country holding rallies endorsing these folks? Doubtful. And if he does, they will be Warren style rallies with 200, not 20,000 people showing up.
Michael K asked if money could buy an election. It will be an interesting experiment. Hilary tried. Outspent DJT by 2X and couldn't make it even with her name recognition and support going in. Is there any amount that Little Mike can spend that will buy him the election?
Someone suggested that he offer others $100mm to drop out. I suspect that it would be illegal but perhaps someone knows better than me. It would certainly be interesting to see. Little Mike gets his turn in the debates, turns to Bernie and says "Bernie, you are not a Democrat, you certainly don't belong on this stage. I'll give you $100mm if you will renounce your candidacy. You can stay in the Senate, just renounce the presidency for all time. In or out?"
"Amy, Pete? Same deal, in or out? Liz, Joe, same deal but only $25mm since you are both likely gone in a couple weeks anyway."
What awesome TV that would be.
John Henry
One difference between Bloomberg and The Donald is that their wealth hasn't been used in the same way regarding their respective primaries.
While Trump was largely self-financed, you never got the impression (in 2015-16) that he was buying the election. Instead, he gave the distinct impression that because he wasn't beholden to donors, he couldn't be bought. That's why he could contradict typical Republican donors on issues like immigration. Trump clearly worked hard for every vote, and didnt coast on his money.
Bloomberg is literally buying the election. He has no charisma, and has no common touch with the people. He is not a genuine celebrity. But he's successfully buying it all out from under his opponents. Without his money, he has absolutely nothing.
So if it comes down to Trump v. Bloomberg, I think the contrast will be obvious. Plus, as others have noted, Trump clearly loves this country and its citizens. Just look at what he did yesterday at Daytona. Bloomberg comes across as a smug and patronizing snob. I can barely stand to listen to him. I think it will be an interesting fight, but Trump will win in a walk.
Off the subject, but it's very interesting to watch TV show reruns from the 80's and 90's and hear how ubiquitous Trump was back then. Law and Order, for example. He was a background presence. Fun fact: Trump's name is mentioned in the finales of both Cheers and The Sopranos.
As the "compassionate and kindness" party, it is to be predicted that Democrats would be compassionate and kind by stepping aside for Bloomberg.
Still waiting for the other Demo candidates and the leadership of the party to say something about Bloomie's farmer comments. The fact that they haven't yet is further evidence that all of them actually agree with him.
@Birks - As a former runner, I think I can answer your question. If given a choice of running on city streets, having to stop at intersections, avoid traffic, loose dogs, etc, or running on a trail in the woods as does Althouse, the choice is an easy one to make. A five minute drive is of no consequence and is well worth the expenditure in gas for the joy of unimpeded running in a natural setting.
mock: Angle-Dyne, I agree that there are matters on which Bloomberg could successfully challenge Trump but these are matters in which Dem voters have little or no interest.
The Dem base, certainly not. Though I'd think that there are old school Dems or Dem-leaning independents who would listen with interest. They'd be greatly outnumbered by people who have never pay attention to those issues, but hey, "he's running against Trump, so I'm going to fill my facebook and twitter with slay-memes about interest rates and debt and shit."
(BTW, how is the planning for your excellent Japanese adventure going?)
"Pete, however, has distinguished himself for calling for decriminalizing ALL drugs and eliminating the Electoral College. Two truly insane policies from a failed small town mayor."
I'm not a supporter of Pete, but decriminalizing all drugs is not necessarily insane at all. Portugal did it in 2001 and it has been a success, with drops in overdoses, drug-related crimes, and HIV rates.
What matters is how you implement such a policy.
Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren all are going to be butt hurt. Sorry, but Cheese Bloomburger has the money, and he will make the rules from now on. Fuck off, losers!
"It's crazy to forsake all others for Bloomberg."
It's just as easy to love a rich man.
That's right big Mike I'm an expert with a shovel, digging bar and mattock I learned how to properly take advantage of biomechanics from old illegal aliens I worked with doing landscaping during Summers.
Everyone says that the wealthy are scared of Bernie. I wonder if that is really true? There is no federal tax on wealth in the US. (Arguably the very avoidable death tax is a tax on wealth but we'll ignore that) The US Constitution prohibits a tax on wealth.
So the wealthy, as opposed to the high income, are pretty safe. Jeff Bezos could be taxed at a 100% tax rate and he would have to pay a few thousand more each year but no biggie to a man worth $100bn
Elizabeth Warren is talking about taxing unrealized gains. If Bezos' Amazon stock went from $100bn to $110bn, perhaps that $10bn would be taxable as income, even though it isn't, really. But even if she could tax it, the underlying $100bn is safe. It may not increase as fast as it does now because of taxes nibbling at it but it will still increase. Unless she puts a 100% marginal rate.
I think the real fear for the wealthy would be that Bernie would put the economy in a tailspin and inflation would get out of control. Remember the Carter years? South American levels of inflation? Bezos' $100b would be untouched but might only buy a couple loaves of bread. See Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany)
OTOH, he could sell up, take the tax hit, buy gold and store it in a vault to avoid inflation.
For all the talk about taxing wealth, it ain't gonna happen.
John Henry
Bernie Sanders has that wild-ass Albert Einstein hair do. it must be very manly because Albert Einstein was quite the pussy hound. This is in sharp contrast to girly Jerry curl Rand Paul
None of the above, with money and some experience.
People, Sanders for instance, are treating letting him into the debate as a fairness issue. That is frankly silly. It is a pick the best candidate issue. Ann points out reasons why above.
I want an alternative to Trump. Is Bloomberg it? I doubt it but so far he is a LOT closer than the others. Let’s find out.
I know you're an expert in robotics and automation John Henry. What do you think about the future when robots eliminate many of our current manual labor jobs? Will there be a wealth tax then or will those businesses have to pay people to not work?
ironic, no?
I favor decriminalizing drugs. Except antibiotics. But there should be a social stigma and we might be too weak for that.
"Howard thinks all education is Socialist."
No, only public education is socialist...as are police and fire departments, the highway system, bridges, roads, reservoirs, the electrical grid, and many other things that are commonly paid for and available to all.
Howard said...
You're absolutely correct Mike. Government subsidies of tuition,
NO, Howard. I was referring to the Chinese money that has bought Harvard and converted what used to be a reasonable liberal arts education into anti_Americanism 101.
Ditto for Yale but you wouldn't know about that.
Cook think that not only education is Socialist but road and bridges, too.
That is what living in New York will do to you,
I remember when it was Beto who was going to save us from Trump.
Good times.
Democrats don't care if an old white billionaire buys their election and steals it away from Bernie once again. As for Bernie, he'll get another lake house.
He calls ‘em a Dacha I gaurendamntee you.
I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer.
Maybe he should be running for president of Zimbabwe instead. Sounds like they could use him more.
So what's your focused on Mike is the one percent of subsidies not the 99%. That's what I was talking about in the other thread how Trump people are so emotional thinking with your ovaries. I like to stay focused on the big picture. Things have never been better and they keep getting better and better, despite what the Chinese are attempting to do. but I find disgusting is people who call themselves Americans that have no confidence in America. That's the height of unamericanism. Although I don't blame you because you are a victim of the MSM talk radio internet brainwashing.
If Bloomberg does it he's literally going to buy it. He gave Stacey Abrams $5000000 for her support and she said fine. He's just going to start passing out money and I have a feeling it's going to be very effective
This tidbit came too late for me to post it in today's Clown Car Update.
"NO, Howard. I was referring to the Chinese money that has bought Harvard and converted what used to be a reasonable liberal arts education into anti_Americanism 101.
"Ditto for Yale but you wouldn't know about that."
You can't blame Howard. No one who doesn't wear tin-foil hats "knows about" China owning Harvard and Yale and having turned their curricula into "anti-Americanism 101."
I think you're wrong Robert cook. Private colleges and universities are also socialist as they are heavily subsidized by the Feds and receive nonprofit status who's private endowments are partially subsidized by tax breaks.
Some people claim that PDJT cut taxes for the wealthy but most of the time they seem confused by the difference between "Taxes" (the dollars paid to the treasury) and "Tax rate" They are not really linked.
A number of times tax rates have been cut while taxes have been increased. If one has an income of $1mm and pays 50% tax, their tax bill is $500m. If tax rates are decreased to 25%, but income goes to $3mm, the tax bill will be $750m.
So, did they get a tax cut or a tax increase?
Most importantly, at which rate, 50% or 25% does the US Treasury get more money?
PDJT's tax rate cuts have resulted in a tax revenue increase.
As did Reagan's, Kennedy's and Coolidges.
And, just by way of no harm, even though there is no federal wealth tax, PDJT did manage to collect taxes on wealth. Lots of wealthy have properties on which they pay mortgages and property tax. That used to be deductible. Now it is capped. So, indirectly, these folks are paying taxes on some of their wealth.
And screaming bloody murder about it.
Well played, PDJT. Well Played.
john Henry
many other things that are commonly paid for and available to all.
I wouldn't call it Socialism unless you want the claim the Pharaohs were socialists. Were the Romans socialists because they built roads, aqueducts, sewers, and public baths? Public infrastructure is a traditional role of government.
"I think you're wrong Robert cook. Private colleges and universities are also socialist as they are heavily subsidized by the Feds and receive nonprofit status who's private endowments are partially subsidized by tax breaks."
Yes, you're correct. I was thinking of public elementary schools and high schools.
When it comes to taxing actual wealth rather than just income, Sanders proposed an extreme wealth tax on people with net worth's of greater than $32 million. Warren has proposed an "Ultra-Millionaire Tax" on the 75,000 richest families. I haven't found any specific details about how things like net worth would be determined for these proposals.
Its soon going to be Mike Bloombust. There's no reason to vote for Mikey if you're a D. His wealth is countered by all his baggage. He's a guy who couldn't get elected anywhere except NYC.
(BTW, how is the planning for your excellent Japanese adventure going?)
Everything is in place so long as it doesn't get derailed by coronavirus. Hoping it will have run its course by September. Working hard at learning Japanese. I'll be crushed if I have to cancel.
"Public infrastructure is a traditional role of government."
Yes, and it is a socialist function. All public functions and services created by, paid for by, maintained by, and used by the community as a whole are socialist in nature.
There's no reason to attack Bloomberg until he show's he's a real threat. It looks like we're going to end up with Bernie as the Left-wing candidate, and Biden or Kochblob or Buttigig as the so-called "moderate". Until the 3 moderates, drop down to 1 or 2, there's no reason to attack Mini-Mike. And Good God, that moron Steyer is STILL in the race.
I think a major feature of right wing socialism denial is rooted in their own weak sense of self and their overcompensation by believing in the bootstrap Lone Wolf I did it on my own path to success and achievement. This same self-esteem problem is what fuels their racism as well.
Warren will probably drop out after super-Tuesday.
Ken declares: I want an alternative to Trump.
Why????
Here in Nevada they're all too busy campaigning against one another to bother with Bloomberg. Bernie seems to be the favorite by quite a bit. We shall see....
Bloomberg has owned the nomination from his point of entry. He will buy it. Democrats, for all the self-righteous posing about the horrible rich, etc., for decades, will nominate him somehow. Fairness and rules be damned.
Nothing trumps TDS and the possibility of Presidential graft for Democrats. Biden Burisma was just small potatoes. The crooked DNC hierarchy can’t go with the other doofuses.
Democrats don’t care about debates. Their minions aren’t engaged in critical thinking. Absent a Tulsi-Kamala moment, Bloomberg will be fine. He can lie with the best of them (See the Super Bowl commercial.).
I'm not a supporter of Pete, but decriminalizing all drugs is not necessarily insane at all. Portugal did it in 2001 and it has been a success, with drops in overdoses, drug-related crimes, and HIV rates.
I'm sure decriminalizing all drugs will have a similar affect on all Portuguese living in America too.
If socialism is defined as having any government at all, we're already socialist and always have been. And since the socialist utopia is already here, there's no need to elect Bernie to implement socialism.
"It's crazy to forsake all others for Bloomberg."
Not if you know that some of your potential constituents might be waiting to "make plans," while looking for someone "serious" and "competent."
They know their voters, and they think, correctly, that Bloomberg may be best in helping their squishy voters rationalize a Dem vote. Of course, they risk pissing off the left, but they figure the left has no place to go and will want to get rid of Trump. For establishment Dems, it's not a crazy calculation to reach out to Althouse more than to lefties.
They may miscalculate, for example by underestimating Althouse's preference for voting for a woman, but the miscalculation would not be crazy.
@wendybar at 8:46am quoted Bloomberg's biggest weakness. That video of him insulting farmers was all over twitter yesterday.
I would be surprised to see him in a debate. His ads allow him one-way communication that can't be challenged. He's arrogant, not witty. He' never come up with "only Rosie O'Donnell" or "you'd be in jail".
These days what's categorized as "Socialist" is such a moving target that I try to avoid using it as a descriptor without proper context. One person may consider a specific policy or program "Socialist" while another may not. I find it more useful to discuss specific policies and why I think they're good or bad by looking at places where similar policies were implimented in history. For example, taxes on wealth (you could call it wealth confiscation or redistribution) have been tried in lots of other places before throughout history.
"I'm sure decriminalizing all drugs will have a similar affect on all Portuguese living in America too."
Your snark duly noted, it very well might. It all has to do with how it is implemented, as is true of everything.
Mockturtle asks why I want an alternative to Trump.
1 Trump is good in some ways, bad in others. If we can find a better choice, why not? If you could resurrect Lincoln, Reagan, or Washington wouldn’t you support them? Same idea.
2 competition ups everyone’s game. Maybe we can get Trump to finally act on school choice, asset forfeiture, or other low hanging fruit.
3 the other candidate, even if weak, has a serious chance to win. Imagine a Trump has a stroke for example. I’d prefer a decent president in such a case. You might laugh at Bernie or Hillary running, until a freak event elects them.
What makes something socialist isn't where the money comes from, becuase in any system, the money originally comes from the people. The government doesn't make much on it's own. What makes something socialist or capitalist is where the decisions are made and what the incentives are. Profit through productivity or graft through government control.
Bloomberg is getting soft treatment for the same reason none of the also-rans would go after Biden before Iowa. They don't really think they can win, and they want to leave open the option of being a big dog's running mate.
The moderate candidates, if they want the nomination, will have to go after Bloomberg on the debate stage. Bloomberg's money is of no use to them in the general election if they aren't the candidate. I think Sanders will lay into Bloomberg in a debate- it is a freebie for him since he doesn't depend on people like Bloomberg. The contrast will kill the other candidates. I think Sanders would love to be heads up against Bloomberg after Super Tuesday- I think it would be the best chance Sanders has to get the nomination.
I don't think the polls are being put on hold, and Bloomberg will surely qualify for the next debate, but I think it possible he turns the invitation down, maybe even probable that he does. It might be best for him to get through Super Tuesday first, then reevaluate.
Yes, and it is a socialist function. All public functions and services created by, paid for by, maintained by, and used by the community as a whole are socialist in nature.
Reminds me of the USSR taking credit for inventing baseball. If socialism was worth spit it would take credit for something new instead of co-opting the achievements of others. But it can't do that.
Howard: “Agricultural subsidies is what floats flyover country.”
So government subsidizing the farms is the same as government ownership of the farms and therefore socialism? Who knew?
Leland wrote:
"Why must they weigh the cost of attacking their opponent? Bloomberg is weak, and he's not donating to them."
I am sure you know this, but the article is a pro-Bloomberg essay written in concern-troll style.
"1 Trump is good in some ways, bad in others. If we can find a better choice, why not? If you could resurrect Lincoln, Reagan, or Washington wouldn’t you support them?"
I wouldn't replace those men with Trump nor replace Trump with them. Each was great because of how their particular strengths met the nation's needs at the time. Trump is best now, becuase we need to fight against the swamp and nobody else would do that as he can and has. Trump's approach is as crazy and essential now as Washington's refusal to be a king was in his time.
McCullough wrote:
"Bernie will go after Bloomberg. The rest don’t have the guts. Bloomberg pays their salaries."
Yes! This is a godsend for Sanders- his one opportunity, I think, to win the nomination.
Trump has, can and will connect with people Bloomberg has not the slightest clue about.
I see that Cookie and that other educated fool are redefining socialism to include infrastructure projects. By that definition, of course, Imperial Rome and Medieval monarchies we’re socialist governments because they built roads and bridges. Caesar AUgustus as socialist despot — who’d have thunk it?
Of course if they don’t expand the definition of socialism to include infrastructure projects then socialism has no successes at all that they can point to. Oh! What to do? What to do?
Yancey Ward said...
The moderate candidates, if they want the nomination, will have to go after Bloomberg on the debate stage
WHAT moderate candidates??
the article is a pro-Bloomberg essay written in concern-troll style.
I'm sure, most articles of this style are exactly that. Supposedly they and ones paid for by foreign governments sway us. However, when anyone does a simple analysis (what's are the risks to weigh?), the article becomes silly and ought be ignored. It won't, which is why they are effective and written.
@Yancey, by no means his only opportunity, but he can’t not attack Bloomberg’s billions and keep faith with his hard core supporters.
Soda tax Bloomberg? Not a chance against Trump.
@wendybar, touché.
What if Bloomieburger never participates in any debates, and just shows up at the big dance in Milwaukee Burn It Down Wisconsin, and the biggies give the nomination to him? Good times.
Ken B replies: 1 Trump is good in some ways, bad in others. If we can find a better choice, why not? If you could resurrect Lincoln, Reagan, or Washington wouldn’t you support them? Same idea.
Well, no, I wouldn't. Much as I admire those men, none could be effective in the age of tweets.
Bill Crawford asked:
"Would it be illegal for Bloomberg to offer each of them $100 million to drop out?"
You give them as genius grants to Abigail Klobuchar Bessler, Chasten Buttuvwxyz, Alexander Warren, and Hunter Biden. Easy Peasy.
I think a major feature of right wing socialism denial is rooted in their own weak sense of self and their overcompensation by believing in the bootstrap Lone Wolf I did it on my own path to success and achievement. This same self-esteem problem is what fuels their racism as well.
Howard,
What kind of dressing would you like on that nonsensical word salad?
I don't agree that running Bloomberg would split the Dems, and that the Bernie fans would stay home.
They hate Trump more than they love Bernie or Pete or Amy.
Joe Biden was right: The Dems could nominate Mickey Mouse, and have a shot. Bloomberg is probably their best chance, with Stacy Abrams as Veep. That likely gets them Georgia.
As I've said before, I think the D's didn't engage their usual fraudulent vote efforts last time, since Hillary was going to win in a historic landslide.
They won't make that mistake again.
To gain the nomination, Bloomberg could appoint Biden's son, Warren's daughter, Sander's wife and Buddhachek's husband to his company's BOD. It's the right thing to do.
mock: Everything is in place so long as it doesn't get derailed by coronavirus. Hoping it will have run its course by September. Working hard at learning Japanese. I'll be crushed if I have to cancel.
Certainly hope the virus has run its course by then. (For the sake of my own plans, too!) Looking forward to hearing your traveler's tales.
(I'm one of the few people who really does want to hear about your trip. That is, as long as you don't think that "here are a jillion pictures of me in front of these Famous Things" constitutes an interesting account of your travels. You don't strike me as that sort.)
Wendybar,
I am just borrowing the terminology used in the media- of course, none are really moderates when examined with respect of American political history.
Blogger Howard said...
I know you're an expert in robotics and automation John Henry. What do you think about the future when robots eliminate many of our current manual labor jobs? Will there be a wealth tax then or will those businesses have to pay people to not work?
Thank you for the kinds words, Howard.
We have been automating like mad 2030 years since Boulton and Watt first producted portable power. Michael mentioned 2% feeding the entire country. 120 years ago 30-40% of all labor in the US was agricultural. Henry Ford grew up on the operating end of a plow. Didn't like it, vowed to "automate" it. Had to invent the automobile first to be able to invent the reliable, economical, Fordson tractor. That, more than anything else, was responsible for automating farming and getting to the 2%.
When I was growing up in the 50's, I didn't know what they really meant but most every day I would hear scare stories about automation replacing jobs. "You can be replaced by a button" was a continuous joke.
Then we had computers that were going to automate everything in the 60s and 70s. They got rid of a HUGE number of jobs. Remember typing pools? Hundreds of women, shoulder to shoulder typing away for minimum wage. Who doesn't do their own typing today? What happened to all those millions of secretaries/clerks/typists and so on who were replaced by "robots" in the form of word processors and PCs? They found other work.
Automation, including robots, creates jobs, it doesn't destroy them.
Here's 2 articles I published last year on the future of robots. 1 in the US, the other in Australia. The Australian one in particular addresses the labor issue. Australia has an even tighter labor market than we do.
Both are packaging magazines so the focus is on packaging but they are also generally applicable.
https://www.packagingdigest.com/robotics/the-right-way-to-use-robots-in-packaging-machines-2019-05-31
http://www.packagingnews.com.au/industry-4-0-and-iiot/robots-get-results
As far as manufacturing jobs go, th ejobs that most people are talking about un/semi skilled jobs (where one can be fully productive in a week or so with no special skills or training) were and are mostly shit jobs. Yes, they do put bread on the table but I doubt that you would want you or yours to spend 30 years doing them. And other than monopoly industries (auto, steel, rubber and a few others) the jobs didn't even pay that well.
In Halberstam's book on the Auto Industry, The Reckoning (Very much worth reading) he talks about line worker in the Belvedere plant, on the way to Madison, making about $4/hr in 1975.
John Henry
"I don't agree that running Bloomberg would split the Dems, and that the Bernie fans would stay home. They hate Trump more than they love Bernie or Pete or Amy. "
I agree with that. The Lefties would elect Mitt Romney just to get rid of Trump. They're that crazy.
DanTheMan said...
I don't agree that running Bloomberg would split the Dems, and that the Bernie fans would stay home.
They hate Trump more than they love Bernie or Pete or Amy."
True of some of them. I think that plenty of Bernie Bros, who would resentfully drag themselves to the polls to vote for Pete or Amy (considered "moderates"), would indeed draw the line at voting for a billionaire. We know that Bernie will fall into line behind the Dems because he's a tool. But the ideological diehards? Voting for Mr. 1 percent, Stop and Frisk when all they've been doing for the past 3 years is screaming about capitalism and racism? It's true that Dems are exceedingly comfortable with their own hypocrisies, but I think Bloomie would be a step too far for many of them.
Of course Bloomberg might win after all. I mean we're talking about Democrats. Nelson Rockefeller said his greatest political mistake was becoming a Republican. "You can't buy Republicans" he said.
"I'm one of the few people who really does want to hear about your trip."
I would like to hear about it too, mockturtle. I hope you're able to go.
"but I think Bloomie would be a step too far for many of them."
All the Bernie Bros voted for Hillary. They'll vote for Bloomberg - if he has D after his name.
Ken B, excellent points!
I have to take issue with "Maybe we can get Trump to finally act on school choice, asset forfeiture, or other low hanging fruit."
These are important issues, not "low-hanging fruit". They are not politically easy to accomplish, especially not at the Federal level (Trump can't do many things by himself, despite his "fascistic and autocratic" governance). I think they are really more important at the state level, and we do want our presidents to support federalism, don't we?
Otherwise, I would welcome good Democratic opposition to Trump for the reasons you state. Unfortunately, we won't get that.
The Bernie Bros could have voted for Jill Stein, but they didn't. Of course, maybe like Hillary, they knew Jill was a Russian Agent. LOL!
Some reading for Howard on universities and China.
Britain once pursued its national interest with such cynical single-mindedness that European diplomats came to call us “perfidious Albion”. Yet these days, on the international stage, we are hopelessly naive. This weekend we learned that Huawei – the Chinese telecommunications company that will help to build our 5G network – secretly funded a Cambridge University study into the global governance of communications and technology. Cambridge denied that Huawei had the right to veto its findings, but the Chinese had no need to do so: predictably, the authors praised their paymasters.
Most US universities are similar. I don't know about CalTech but I understand more than half their students are Asian.
On automation, that is an excellent reason to control the border and not fill the country with illiterate peasants competing with the low IQ Americans for the remaining unskilled jobs.
I'm rooting for Bernie because I want this election to be honest. Bernie is an HONEST socialist. Biden, Buttigig, and Klochbob are dishonest ones. They'll pose as Fake Moderates. Just like Clinton in '92 and Obama in 2008. All these characters have insane policy positions, but people are stupid and get taken in by the Moderate tone.
rcocean,
The Bernie Bros seem different this year. In 2016, I think many of them were surprised Bernie made it as far as he did. This year, they're convinced he's gonna do it and Revolution is right around the corner. They will not take it well if the old Commie isn't nominated.
Of course, that's just my perception and I could certainly be wrong. After 2016, I know better than to make any confident predictions about which way the cat will jump.
and one of the 'consultants' is Robert hannigan, the former ghcq chief, that drove louise mensch crazy (it's a short trip)
Speaking of robots and low IQ stories, I saw one on Twitter this morning.
A guy goes into a bar in Louisiana where there is a robot bartender.
Bartender says, "What will you have?"
Guy says, "Whiskey."
Bartender brings the drink and asked "What is your IQ?"
Guy says, "168."
Bartender talks about space travel, Physics and Medical technology.
Guy leaves but begins thinking about it and goes back
Bartender says, "What will you have?"
Guy says, "Whiskey."
Bartender brings the drink and asked "What is your IQ?"
Guy says, "100."
Bartender talks about Budweiser, NASCAR and LSU football.
Guy finishes his drink and leaves but decides to see another experiment. He goes back one more time.
Bartender says, "What will you have?"
Guy says, "Whiskey."
Bartender brings the drink and asked "What is your IQ?"
Guy says, "35."
Bartender leans over close and says, "So, do you folks think you are really going to impeach Trump?"
That is, as long as you don't think that "here are a jillion pictures of me in front of these Famous Things" constitutes an interesting account of your travels. You don't strike me as that sort.)
LOL, no, Angle-Dyne, I'm not. And as I'll be traveling alone and don't do selfies, there will be few photos and none with me as the subject. As I mentioned, my itinerary will be focused on historical Japan, especially the Ashikaga, Monoyama and Edo Periods. Original castles and museums displaying these periods will be my mainstays. Most of my meals will come from konbini [convenience stores] and train stations. As I'll be spending a good deal of time on the Shinkansen, coronavirus would certainly be a deterrent if it's still an issue.
Howard,
What is your opinion on Skilsaws?
How many carpenters have been put out of work by skilsaws, power drills, power nailers and a hundred other tools?
A lot of these were low skilled carpenters. The skilled carpenter would measure, calculate angles and mark a line. Then a grunt with a crosscut saw would spend 3-4 minutes of hard physical labor cutting a 2X4.
What happened to all those carpenters put out of work by power tools? Is there a truck that comes around everynight that sweeps them up from the street where they expired of hunger?
John Henry
That is, as long as you don't think that "here are a jillion pictures of me in front of these Famous Things" constitutes an interesting account of your travels. You don't strike me as that sort.)
LOL, no, Angle-Dyne, I'm not. And as I'll be traveling alone and don't do selfies, there will be few photos and none with me as the subject. As I mentioned, my itinerary will be focused on historical Japan, especially the Ashikaga, Monoyama and Edo Periods. Original castles and museums displaying these periods will be my mainstays. Most of my meals will come from konbini [convenience stores] and train stations. As I'll be spending a good deal of time on the Shinkansen, coronavirus would certainly be a deterrent if it's still an issue.
Also famous battle sites and samurai swords. ;-)
Not sure how the comment section got to the discussion, but John Henry is delivering some a dose of reality. Bringing it back to Bloomberg, I guess the candidate doesn't realize how much agriculture is being automated, and without such automation, most of civilization would starve as we reduce land available for agriculture and progressives convince the youth that agriculture is something not worthy of pride or respect.
On the farm remark, let's just admit that if Bloomberg were put out in the middle of nowhere with only a briefcase of different seeds and enough canned food to last for a year, he would be dead in 18 months.
"it's good for giving me a sense of what Democrats are freaking out about at the moment"
That is so great! I've got to remember to tell my wife. And I've got to remember to remind myself . . . when I see the Morning Joe folk apoplexic yet again.
What happened to all those carpenters put out of work by power tools?
They spend their time in blog comment sections spouting liberal talking points.
How many carpenters have been put out of work by skilsaws, power drills, power nailers and a hundred other tools?
Norm Abrams could not be reached for comment.
John Henry: They work in lower wage service jobs. I love my skilsaw. The speed square was just as disrupting. These two inventions helped make the small contractors and handymen competitive with bigger outfits. The computer did that for me to complete against multinational consultants. I often wonder what happened to all those chain-smoking word processing ladies and draftsmen that everyone employed by the hundreds.
In these cases the entry price for these tools was affordable to middle class and lower middle class people. The robotic revolution from what I understand will require significant capital investment which will skew the explosion to favor larger firms. This will cause the need to have guaranteed basic income.
The jist from your posts and the two articles I read are that you take the Long view that this will not happen overnight and that people will transition through change like they have in the past for all technological advance. That sounds very reasonable to me. I appreciate your thoughts and insights
Okay doc Mike I'll bite. How do you explain the fact that the u.s. is actually bordering on having too few employable workers to satisfy the growth of our economy?
Did you read John Henry's comments on automation and robotics in the future? You could apply the same logic to immigration to determine that it really isn't a problem either.
There's another risk, at least for the moderates: Weakening the one who may be best poised to stop Sanders
So, the best alternative the "Democratic" Party has to running a socialist is to run a fascist?
No, only public education is socialist...as are police and fire departments, the highway system, bridges, roads, reservoirs, the electrical grid, and many other things that are commonly paid for and available to all.
No. Because a government program exists, it doesn’t mean those programs are “socialist”. This is such a bullshit dichotomy it’s infuriating. Using that standard, you either have a socialist government, or anarchy, and there is no in-between.
Government-run bureaus are just that - government run bureaus.
That aside - would you lefties please make your minds up? The other day, Paul Krugman announces that Bernie wasn’t really socialist. If that’s true, how do lefties square that with the fact that all government run bureaus are evidence of socialism?
Yes, and it is a socialist function. All public functions and services created by, paid for by, maintained by, and used by the community as a whole are socialist in nature.
No. That is NOT the definition of socialism, no matter how often you repeat that mantra. Socialism means government COMMAND of an economy. It doesn’t denote public programs, UNLESS those programs lead to that command economy.
Stop spreading this bullshit.
“All the Bernie Bros voted for Hillary. They'll vote for Bloomberg - if he has D after his name.”
Maybe, maybe not. They suspected Bernie got screwed in 16, but they’ll be certain of it this time if Bernie gets to the convention with a plurality and doesn’t get the nomination. It’ll be interesting times.
If we can find a better choice, why not? If you could resurrect Lincoln, Reagan, or Washington wouldn’t you support them? Same idea.
Instead of naming candidates who are dead, why not name one that exists today who fits this mold? I’ll answer for you: there isn’t a single one that exists. No one on the right, who is a viable candidate at all, is better than Trump right now.
What if Bloomieburger never participates in any debates, and just shows up at the big dance in Milwaukee Burn It Down Wisconsin, and the biggies give the nomination to him? Good times.
Who’s to say Bloomberg would debate Trump if he were to get the nomination? I say all Dems’ biggest weakness, especially against Trump, is that their theories and stances don’t hold any weight, and Trump would tear them to shreds. Imagine Trump going after Bloomberg over his soda bans, for one example.
I think there is a 50/50 chance that there won’t be any dates between the nominees.
Sorry about the OT dialogue but hey, yesterday a few guys went off about electric cars, so...;-)
Blogger Jim Gust said...The DNC will do whatever is needed to get to a brokered convention, where they can hand the crown to Bloomberg. 2/17/20, 8:43 AM
If that happens as you postulate, somebody better make Sanders a billionaire. If not, he will run as an independent, green party, etc., and split the Democratic vote. Let's see, Trump takes the moderate to conservative Democratic vote and Sanders takes the Liberal/Leftist vote. What's Left for Bloomberg?????
"No. That is NOT the definition of socialism, no matter how often you repeat that mantra. Socialism means government COMMAND of an economy. It doesn’t denote public programs, UNLESS those programs lead to that command economy."
1. In re: your definition: according to whom?
2. Our government, (as do others) manages the economy. Where is the line between management and command? Perhaps one can say that, to the degree a government does not spend money in accordance with public wishes or needs, but to benefit select favored entities, (e.g., the ever-metastasizing military budget, enriching arms merchants and associated parasites of the people's treasure, but benefitting exactly no one else, or tax policies that favor the wealthy), a government commands, rather than manages an economy. (And yes, a nation's military is also a socialist government function.)
3. My previous comments about socialism remain correct, your foot stamping notwithstanding.
Mickey Mouse (D-Florida) carries every state Hillary carried. Add in some fraud and The Mouse gets PA, MI, and WI.
Nanny Bloomie can’t do it because none of them are paying attention.
When a bunch of upper class New York City SAH moms have to get together to make the streets safer for their children -and they voted for letting the inmates run the asylum- denying stop and frisk and all those other laws now in place turning NYC, DC, SF into real life purge while Trump points points out to the rest of the country they want to take your guns and turn you into prey —as I’ve pointed out repeatedly-/ no contest.
Add in the franchise and independent contractor-killing mandatory union joining AB5....
Cookie - what are some examples of government spending that aren't socialist, in your view?
Howard, your comment is self contradictory. I assume you didn't notice as you seem intelligent if deluded by your politics.
You want lots of illiterate peasants who have IQs about 80 and the US is short of skilled workers who will NOT be replaced by robots.
I spent ten years reviewing workers comp claims in CA. 1/3 to 1/2 were illegals. Most did not even speak Spanish fluently. Second grade education was claimed by the rest. A guy I knew who was an investigator for SCIF the state workers comp fund said those workers were so common as claimants because they were used in high risk jobs with no safety gear.
Cook thinks anything that works has to be Socialism. Not worth getting into that debate.
Blogger mockturtle said...
(BTW, how is the planning for your excellent Japanese adventure going?)
Everything is in place so long as it doesn't get derailed by coronavirus. Hoping it will have run its course by September. Working hard at learning Japanese. I'll be crushed if I have to cancel."
We bit the bullet and went on our New Zealand/Australia trip. I'm not too worried about New Zealand, but I have concerns about Sydney, especially the airport. Made it here. Still have to make it home.
September will be a whole new ball game, either better or worse.
"2. Our government, (as do others) manages the economy."
To our detriment.
"2. Our government, (as do others) manages the economy."
Like the police department manages your neighborhood, and your family, and your bedroom.
Can you imagine a debate between POTUS Trump and Nancy Bloomers?
I love how socialists always decry that tax policy benefits the rich when the poor pay virtually no taxes. Nearly half of Americans pay in less than their share, and the rich fund the vast majority of the burden for everyone else. It's impossible to cut taxes on people who pay none, and so if you want the economic growth and employment that comes from reducing taxes, you must cut taxes on the rich who then invest that money in job creating activity. It's so simple and obvious that only the cloud of envy can block it from your view.
It looks like the Nevada caucuses have a spit and baling wire system to report results. A hastily-developed system depends on ipads, pdf files, and a paper backup. Sounds like Iowa 2.0.
. My previous comments about socialism remain correct, your foot stamping notwithstanding.
Your previous (and current) comments on this topic are unmitigated BS. The government is not supposed to manage the economy. Whenever they do, they screw things up. The economy was really screwed up during the Obama administration for that same reason. So I can see how you’d think we’re a socialist nation. In some respects, we are.
That aside, that doesn’t make all government services (such as police, fire, roads) by their nature “socialist”. And since you asked me, I’m going to ask you: where is YOUR definition of “socialism” coming from? And what makes your interpretation more valid than mine? The fact that you yourself proclaim to be a socialist?
Trying to rise above it all by declaring that I’m the one foot-stomping doesn’t negate your pure ignorance of what the term “socialism” really means.
Not easy to steal a primary, give them a break.
The problem is that even people who call themselves "socialists" seem to have trouble agreeing on what Socialism even is and what it isn't. Most people have heard it defined in terms of a government controlling some or all means of production as opposed to Communism which has been described as the government controlling both production and consumption. But a lot of people don't like those parameters and delineations either.
In general I've found that people who are advocates for more government control seem to want to reframe or reimagine Socialism in such a way so it can be interpreted to mean virtually anything that the government does, and especially any sort of program that is thought of by most people as good and necessary. This strikes me as rather disingenuous however. After all, if everything the government does is Socialist than it seems the term Socialism seems rather meaningless. May as well just call it "Governmentism".
At any rate, maybe I am being unfair but this constant changing of definitions and moving of goal posts doesn't feel like good faith arguing to me. Searching for things that people like so that you can incorporate them into whatever your personal definition of "Socialism" seems slippery.
Per Wikipedia:
"Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprise..."
So, Howard, pray connect the dots between that definition and land grant farm/agricultural colleges. Or police and fire departments, the highway system, bridges, roads, reservoirs, the electrical grid... Pick one and connect the dots.
Extensive discussions on how best to rearrange the deck chairs continue. They keep sliding to one side...
Cook thinks anything that works has to be Socialism.
It's good to see him arguing that making the trains run on time is a socialist accomplishment.
1. Trump made the debates FUN. Bloomberg wants to tell us what to do and is boring in his tyrannic lecturing. Can you be bored and afraid at the same time? With Bloomberg, yes.
2. Trump is fighting back for us, after years of conservatives being trampled in the mud of PC and "diversity". Bloomberg likes PC and "Diversity" and wants more of it.
That's just for starters.
Re: Socialism
It sounds like a debate between high schoolers over what is and isn't socialism.
Forget the term. There is no more textbook socialism nor textbook capitalism in the world.
let's discus the policy proposals among politicians of different stripes.
For example, what is the role of government in managing economic activity (and who does it benefit)?
Original Mike: Hope you make it home virus-free. Are there any quarantines in Australia?
It seems like nominating someone who was the mayor of NYC while Trump was doing business from there would give Trump a bit of a home field advantage. Not that Bloomberg might not have some useful insights into Trump, but he had to deal with many, many businesses during his time as mayor while Trump only had to deal with one mayor of NYC during those years.
@mockturtle, just a note. The Japanese have at least four different words or phrases for “manners.” (That I know of.) It can be difficult to know exactly what to do and how to react in any situation. You might want to use multiple sources for teaching you before you leave.
I am envious.
mockturtle: Not to my knowledge. There are travel restrictions.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा