|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> separating wheat from chaff /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1575465480 Message started by WebsterMark on 12/04/19 at 05:18:00 |
|
Title: separating wheat from chaff Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/19 at 05:18:00 The value of our long Presidential campaigns is up for debate but it certainly has a way of forcing out those who can't sustain initial support. I initially thought Kamala Harris was the odds on favorite. Her far left positions weren't any further out there than the others. I suggested Trump give her the name Cruela de Harris because it fit so well. Attractive but probably has a blade on her......and not for defensive purposes. Turns out, maybe not so much. Of course none of us are part of the inner circle but I read 3 or 4 different articles that all said she gets too easily distracted and wouldn't stay focused. Refused to go after Biden after her initial attack against him. Is that because she didn't want to or didn't realize that was the hand to play at that moment? Who knows what the real truth is but clearly she wasn't able to "read the map" and adjust accordingly. Is that the best talent to demonstrate competency for the Office? Seems to have worked so far given we're all still here and the economy is chugging along. Within another month, we'll be done to only a few. I stii predict Biden drops out. He makes no sense when he talks sometimes (like Trump many would say) but he lacks Trump's presence. Besides, I think this impeachment thing is going to bring out skeletons he'd rather stay hidden. Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders? As crazy as it sounds, having one socialist up against another, can't be any crazier than Donald J Trump wiping the Republican field 4 years ago. I'm a betting man, but right now, I wouldn't place a bet on who the Democratic challenger will be. I think Warren, but I thought Harris and look how that turned out. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by oldNslow on 12/04/19 at 06:24:39 If I had to bet today I'd put my money on Bloomberg as the party's choice. I doubt that the DNC insiders believe that they can win in 2020 with any of the current slate of hopefuls, their coffers aren't exactly overflowing right now, and they might make the cynical calculation that they are better off letting Bloomberg waste his money on a lost cause than waste theirs. It remains to be seen if the party can jam him down the throats of the rank and file at the convention and make him the nominee though. A lot can happen between now and next summer of course. So full speed ahead with the impeachment nonsense until that ship hits the rocks. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by srinath on 12/04/19 at 06:50:13 I agree, Bloomberg seems the nominee. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by T And T Garage on 12/04/19 at 07:34:21 Bernie is the right choice (he's leading in fundraising, and in number of individual contributions). If, like me, you thought Obama was a corporatist, then you ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to Blomberg. He's a "dino" in my opinion. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by srinath on 12/04/19 at 08:00:09 6F717E7F726F74691B0 wrote:
Bernie and Tulsi are going to get railroaded. Warren isn't too far behind on that same path. The democratic part is run by wall street and IT sector, they don't want any one who isn't a DINO. Both sides are run by big $, and that's just how the big $ likes it. Like Ron Paul of the 07-08 campaign, breaks records in small donor numbers and loses anyway. Biden and Bloomberg will be left standing, Maybe Buttegieg. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by Serowbot on 12/04/19 at 08:38:29 Biden is the grampa we love,... Trump is.. ...the other one. :-? |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/19 at 09:34:06 Two Bloombergs, one Bernie and I think one grandpa Joe I'm surprised about the Bloombergs picks. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by verslagen1 on 12/04/19 at 09:55:33 1006110C14010C17630 wrote:
Bad granpa or Dirty granpa... take your pick. :-? |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/19 at 10:19:44 I don't see the appeal of Bloomberg. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by oldNslow on 12/04/19 at 10:55:25 675552434455427D51425B300 wrote:
That's because he hasn't got any. Except to the DNC insiders, who would prefer to sit this one out entirely and focus on 2024 if that was possible. If you're going to get your a*s handed to you anyway why spend your own funds when you can find an uneltectable, egotistical sucker who is more than willing to pi*s away his own. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by Serowbot on 12/04/19 at 11:01:00 Why would we want another New York billionaire?... Fool me once.... :-? |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/19 at 12:11:36 I think you could also say why would we want another white, older, woman Senator from the Northeast? |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/19 at 12:12:37 5D63626E7C60610F0 wrote:
That's because he hasn't got any. Except to the DNC insiders, who would prefer to sit this one out entirely and focus on 2024 if that was possible. If you're going to get your a*s handed to you anyway why spend your own funds when you can find an uneltectable, egotistical sucker who is more than willing to pi*s away his own. [/quote] Something to be said for that. Bob Dole had zero chance. No one else wanted to be the sacrificial lamb. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by T And T Garage on 12/04/19 at 12:21:29 Bernie should be the candidate. Will he be? We'll see... But in the entire field, he's the only one who's not waivered from his positions. The reason we're even having the conversations about Medicare for all and a $15 minimum wage is because he's been championing them from day one. The establishment on both sides hate him. As to the dems getting their "a$$es handed to them" - I highly doubt that. At this point, trump is doing far more harm to the GOP than good. Once the con cucks realize what that means, he's under the bus. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by raydawg on 12/04/19 at 15:40:30 Web....if you sort through some articles, Real Clear Politics, is a good site, listing current stories/articles, together ( as in side by side ) you can view any given topic/subject, with input from opposing views, publications.... It is great, to see how interpretations, have become more important, than the actual occurrence, of a news story, or topic. You can weigh any evidence, and decide accordingly..... Anyway....lots of articles about the real power/monied democrat donors worried over the current crop. From what I find, reading these articles, and we even heard President Obama chime in on it last week, they are worried the popularity of the Warrens/Sanders, won't carry over to a general population vote, favorably. With Warren tanking, that lends lots of credence to this thinking.... It will be Joe, or Pete.....which, if given lots of publicity, he could resonate with lots of disenfranchised voters who are looking for a "nice guy" His homosexuality will dissuade some, but I think his "faith" will represent a bigger hurdle for him, as he will have to explain that apparent conflict.....WHICH, I think is a moot point, as not a single believer.......could cast that first stone, honestly..... Nor did Jesus, when he had opportunities to judge, and didn't. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by srinath on 12/04/19 at 16:09:12 203E31303D203B26540 wrote:
Why is that a positive ? I mean it could be, but it isn't neccesarily so in some cases. I still think all Bernies ideas are like the Harry Potter books, lots and lots of magic required. Yea nice movie and book series, but lots of magic required. Oh yea, the operative word isnt' magic, that would be too unbelievable, its "free". Good game, very good game Bernie talks. Levitate and hover, Yoda will. Mixing metaphors, Srinath is. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by pg on 12/04/19 at 17:21:03 6D6C77707F6A761E0 wrote:
Why is that a positive ? I mean it could be, but it isn't neccesarily so in some cases. I still think all Bernies ideas are like the Harry Potter books, lots and lots of magic required. Yea nice movie and book series, but lots of magic required. Oh yea, the operative word isnt' magic, that would be too unbelievable, its "free". Good game, very good game Bernie talks. Levitate and hover, Yoda will. Mixing metaphors, Srinath is. Cool. Srinath. [/quote] ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by raydawg on 12/04/19 at 17:44:24 I thought that was a bad trait, I mean, are we not suppose to herald, and promote, bipartisan....... Being rigid, and unmoving, well, that seems so Trump like, ya know, like elections have consequences :-/ |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by srinath on 12/05/19 at 04:15:42 3C2F372A2F39294E0 wrote:
Not when both sides what to shaft the working class. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by Mavigogun on 12/05/19 at 07:36:03 3B3A2126293C20480 wrote:
"All"? I can see how some might appear that way, for those lacking intimacy with policy. I can see how others could legitimately be judged so when predicted outcomes differ, accurate or not. But "all"? No. "All" is the label of prejudice. Since I was a kid in the 70's, working class wages have been suppressed below inflation, and radically below productivity. This is a fundamental contributor to poverty, the shrinking middle class, and the healthcare crisis. Sander's 2016 Presidential bid elevated his wage policy advocacy; as a consequence, popular support for such policies has seen minimum wage standards raised across the county, with corresponding benefits outpacing liabilities predicted by nay-sayers. Hyperbolic noise obscures the reason Sanders and Warren have attained such purchase: their advocacy responds to compelling governance and systemic failures. While many of the policies responsible for those failures received diverse support, the Republican Party developed into the champion for many, and stalwart opponent to address of the resulting problems. The reflexive support of Laissez-faire Capitalism above practical consequence is what has elevated Sanders and Warren to the stage center- that and their long record of advocacy. Sadly, their consistency is the product of necessity in areas long lacking consolidated support. Warren's singular role in building consumer protections was pragmatic- but however necessary, would not have manifested without a champion determined to forge a path. There is an argument against everything. OSHA. Social Security. A minimum wage above poverty. The EPA. While it may feel satisfying to make a play on words about magical thinking, it isn't compelling for any who seriously regard address of these problems as critical to our communities. --- The Democrat Party is certainly not the totality of progressive ideals- but lacking a parliamentary system, it has become the big tent including the diversity unwelcome in the narrowing Republican arena. The Democrat Party legacy no longer defines the Party- nor does the historic powerbase; while the Citizens United ruling has done profound damage to the practice of both the democratic franchise and governance, it has prompted candidates to differentiate themselves by grassroots funding. Such grassroots support may prove a better predictor of required endurance beyond the primary. --- Bloomberg has a hard road to the nomination, save by accident of circumstance- others drop out, with scandal or catastrophe striking other contenders in the final hours before the polls open. Bloomberg has not built his name as a motive force for traveling to the polls; while his primary appeals of business success and moderate stance could win those favoring predictability over change, he will still need to demonstrate the ability to appeal to a broad enough coalition to inspire certain victory over the incumbent. The time remaining to do so dwindles. If he is able to qualify for the December debate, he may provide a stark enough contrast to differentiate himself- mostly to the detriment of relatively inexperienced moderates. --- While Harris had a portion of my hope, her performance in this contest has relied overly much on sentiment; while some of her arguments have demonstrate wit, character, and understanding of appeal, these came at the expense of elucidating policy proposals. It seemed to me debate performance feedback actually prompted Harris to further misplace focus. --- At the primaries, Buttigieg's main challenge isn't his sexuality, but certainty: he lacks a record of achievement or advocacy of broad appeal. While an impressive orator, he hasn't managed to convey policy in a way that allow for voters to predict how he would govern; this strategy of ambiguity act as foil to his moderately progressive stance. We really can't tell to what degree he'd favor the use of military force, for example, as he has signaled a will to express principle via military engagment. In many ways, his campaign resembles Obama's- without the experience, coordination of resources, and, most critically, reflexive appeal to esential portions of the electorate. He has a high lift to the nomination. I wonder if Ray's nuanced apprehension of scripture is broadly shared; with support for Trump by Evangelicals as indicator, that seems not to be- but they are not all of Christendom in the US. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by raydawg on 12/05/19 at 07:37:58 4E4F54535C49553D0 wrote:
Not when both sides what to shaft the working class. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] ouch..... |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by raydawg on 12/05/19 at 08:02:16 I wonder if Ray's nuanced apprehension of scripture is broadly shared; with support for Trump by Evangelicals as indicator, that seems not to be- but they are not all of Christendom in the US. Lets expand on that a wee bit....... When you have the divorce rate, of those families professing to be believers in Christ, almost identical to the secular population..... Well......to me personally, I find it troubling, and warrants a dose of heavy skepticism, to what they say...... As I do with liberalism, when they preach tolerance, and exhibit none. One final thought re: Pete and experience...... Of late, and rightly so, as with Obama, who you offered up, folks wanted to get away from that experienced politician, because we saw them not addressing the issues, but becoming heavily partisan, and he ran as that uniter....Hope and Change of what......???? The status quo. YES! It got my vote, but then he got sucked into party first politics, and struggled through both administrations. Trump, ditto.....outsider, no political baggage/experience, look who he had to beat in the primary, a Cruz and a Bush..... :o :o :o That is heavy political prowess and clout, entrench DC politics that is NOT working for most folk..... As you can see by Trump's popularity OUTSIDE of DC and the BIG cities, in other words, common folk I am not well versed in who Pete is, or what he represents, I do know very well, however, the Gay community, and in my sphere that does not present a obstacle personally, or to many folk I do know..... But yes, there is some "in the church" who would hold it against him, I am afraid,and I believe, wrongly so...... He is the one to watch, but again his threats will come in his own party, surely first, anyway, how he handles that challenge will reveal a lot about the man, I believe. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by srinath on 12/05/19 at 08:50:49 6F63746B656D65776C020 wrote:
"All"? I can see how some might appear that way, for those lacking intimacy with policy. I can see how others could legitimately be judged so when predicted outcomes differ, accurate or not. But "all"? No. "All" is the label of prejudice. Since I was a kid in the 70's, working class wages have been suppressed below inflation, and radically below productivity. This is a fundamental contributor to poverty, the shrinking middle class, and the healthcare crisis. Sander's 2016 Presidential bid elevated his wage policy advocacy; as a consequence, popular support for such policies has seen minimum wage standards raised across the county, with corresponding benefits outpacing liabilities predicted by nay-sayers. Hyperbolic noise obscures the reason Sanders and Warren have attained such purchase: their advocacy responds to compelling governance and systemic failures. While many of the policies responsible for those failures received diverse support, the Republican Party developed into the champion for many, and stalwart opponent to address of the resulting problems. The reflexive support of Laissez-faire Capitalism above practical consequence is what has elevated Sanders and Warren to the stage center- that and their long record of advocacy. Sadly, their consistency is the product of necessity in areas long lacking consolidated support. Warren's singular role in building consumer protections was pragmatic- but however necessary, would not have manifested without a champion determined to forge a path. There is an argument against everything. OSHA. Social Security. A minimum wage above poverty. The EPA. While it may feel satisfying to make a play on words about magical thinking, it isn't compelling for any who seriously regard address of these problems as critical to our communities. --- The Democrat Party is certainly not the totality of progressive ideals- but lacking a parliamentary system, it has become the big tent including the diversity unwelcome in the narrowing Republican arena. The Democrat Party legacy no longer defines the Party- nor does the historic powerbase; while the Citizens United ruling has done profound damage to the practice of both the democratic franchise and governance, it has prompted candidates to differentiate themselves by grassroots funding. Such grassroots support may prove a better predictor of required endurance beyond the primary. --- Bloomberg has a hard road to the nomination, save by accident of circumstance- others drop out, with scandal or catastrophe striking other contenders in the final hours before the polls open. Bloomberg has not built his name as a motive force for traveling to the polls; while his primary appeals of business success and moderate stance could win those favoring predictability over change, he will still need to demonstrate the ability to appeal to a broad enough coalition to inspire certain victory over the incumbent. The time remaining to do so dwindles. If he is able to qualify for the December debate, he may provide a stark enough contrast to differentiate himself- mostly to the detriment of relatively inexperienced moderates. --- While Harris had a portion of my hope, her performance in this contest has relied overly much on sentiment; while some of her arguments have demonstrate wit, character, and understanding of appeal, these came at the expense of elucidating policy proposals. It seemed to me debate performance feedback actually prompted Harris to further misplace focus. --- At the primaries, Buttigieg's main challenge isn't his sexuality, but certainty: he lacks a record of achievement or advocacy of broad appeal. While an impressive orator, he hasn't managed to convey policy in a way that allow for voters to predict how he would govern; this strategy of ambiguity act as foil to his moderately progressive stance. We really can't tell to what degree he'd favor the use of military force, for example, as he has signaled a will to express principle via military engagment. In many ways, his campaign resembles Obama's- without the experience, coordination of resources, and, most critically, reflexive appeal to esential portions of the electorate. He has a high lift to the nomination. I wonder if Ray's nuanced apprehension of scripture is broadly shared; with support for Trump by Evangelicals as indicator, that seems not to be- but they are not all of Christendom in the US. [/quote] This is very well written, no doubt well thought out. This misses 1 massive point though. Putting in all these minimum wage and "free" medical benefits, college and this and that with no check on who'd enter to avail of that just means the taxpayer ends up paying for a lot of freeloaders from other countries. Rich benefits with unfettered immigration = bankruptcy. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by Mavigogun on 12/05/19 at 09:07:41 76657D60657363040 wrote:
All else aside, this exclusion of the majority of the US population as not being "common folk" strikes me as *bigoted. This contest of individual value between rural and urban peoples is synthetic, a legacy of that Slave-State holdover, the Electoral College, and the politics of division and advantage. According to the US Census, over 80% of the US population resides in urban areas, and over 60% in large cities. Most common folk in the United States live in a "big city". The values of rural folk are legitimate- but not in this suggested elevation. (*"bigoted" here does not reference hate, but "an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others", where 'belief' and 'opinion' equate to values. Don't let use here trigger reaction, only qualify the observation.) |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by Mavigogun on 12/05/19 at 09:12:52 2223383F302539510 wrote:
I did not provide a uniform endorsement of policy- rather, I decried a lack of discretion, and urged individual consideration before discounting. This speaks directly to your immigration concerns- which do not accurately reflect Sanders advocacy. One place to start the education process would be to read his platform statements on immigration- you may find them here: https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-immigration/ |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by srinath on 12/05/19 at 09:22:49 2F23342B252D25372C420 wrote:
I did not provide a uniform endorsement of policy- rather, I decried a lack of discretion, and urged individual consideration before discounting. This speaks directly to your immigration concerns- which do not accurately reflect Sanders advocacy. One place to start the education process would be to read his platform statements on immigration- you may find them here: https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-immigration/[/quote] That sounds like an excellent way to waste an hour or 2. IMHO, then when he gets railroaded by Bloomberg or Biden by the DNC we can regret what we lost. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by Mavigogun on 12/05/19 at 09:51:58 27263D3A35203C540 wrote:
What time you dedicate to your own education is always your choice. Here, your suggested time frame seems provocatively unrealistic; a cursory good-faith effort to review this material I'd put closer to 10 minutes. It is an expression of contempt for we readers and our time when asked to weigh words and opinions, but the author can't be bothered to educate themselves on the very topics they opine. Worse still, when those words are accorded consideration, and the response discarded with a deflection like you've offered here- 'none of that will mater anyway'. In one breath, you care about immigration policy, in the next, you don't, because it no longer servers your premise. I ask that you summons more respect for we readers than that. |
|
Title: Re: separating wheat from chaff Post by srinath on 12/06/19 at 01:29:35 3B37203F3139312338560 wrote:
I always care about immigration policy - as in - I don't want one. Throw all of them out and stop bringing in legal laborers and IT workers and nurses and everyone else under the cover of "economic expansion". Adding more people to the workforce by any means necessary only works for the corporatists, and for the working man, it lowers wages and raises cost of living. The biggest corporations in the country own large swaths of real estate, especially apartment complexes and trailer parks. Brining in workers to work at a different arm of the same company means those corporations can pay lower wages and charge them more in terms of rent. How could a democratic leaning person not see that big corporations (like amazon, google, BOA, Wellsfargo, JPMC Citi etc) do this in a nearly unchecked fashion. BOA owns parking lots near their offices, they get you for parking as well. Some new tech isn't as divested in real estate, but they're definitely part of the supply side problem bringing in several 1000 both as direct employees as well as sub contracted from other vendors. Much of this has been blamed on "shrinking work force" and Economic expansion, basically its just an excuse to move $$$ from the likes of Kmart, target and sears to Amazon, amazon and amazon. We don't need this crap, apparently people were alive in the 70's and 80's as well, and oddly enough happy too. My neighborhood Kmart looked dingy and dirty, I loved it all the same as much as a Kmart can be loved, till I got a bloody ticket sitting in that parking lot (the cop followed me down the street for having CA tags in NC and that Kmart just happened to be the easiest spot to pull in) Adding more "americans" dilutes the value of each American. I was clueless in the years I wandered through that door, but getting more and more acutely aware of it with each passing year. Brining people to any cold country multiplies 10-30X the co2 emissions. You remember that John Oliver's clip about a wide open corn field as a comeback to trump's "we're full" The simple thing is, we can take those people who want in and put them in that corn field. They cant burn, build, drive, or do anything else. If you're bothered about co2 - build a house like in US out of wood and dry wall concrete etc, you cut a bunch of trees, heat your house, again co2, drive to work - and the biggest ongoing emissions. Seriously we're not full, we're frozen and Greta Thunberg has told us "how dare us" fill up the air with more co2 and take down more trees. That corn field is there and empty because we cant afford the co2. How can you on one had say you care about environment etc etc and then encourage this monster scale de forest and burn fuel idea. Climate science isn't under debate, the solution is. I saw Bernie's ideas in 16, they were fine, oddly Bernie or Bust crowd likely sat it out or voted for Libertarian or constitution etc. I am hoping to not get too deep into any dem so I don't feel robbed when they railroad who ever they don't control. Cool. Srinath. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |