PDA

View Full Version : Mike Bloomberg?


Kimon
01-23-2016, 02:29 PM
It's not often that an independent candidate seems viable, but Bloomberg could make things interesting, especially if it is Trump vs Sanders. But would Mike just steal votes from the Dems? He basically is just a more likable version of Hillary from a policy standpoint. But would establishment-type Republicans also prefer him to Trump? Maybe. And if the Republicans go full-blown crazy and nominate Cruz? Bloomberg probably wins in a complete landslide if it is him, Cruz, and Sanders (or Hillary). Heck, in that scenario, I'd probably be looking at poll numbers to decide between Mike and Bernie/Hillary.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35392989

Terez
01-23-2016, 11:08 PM
I think I would be tempted to vote for him over Hillary. Not sure about Bernie. Definitely Trump or Cruz, though.

Yeah, if he gets in the race it will probably be messy. I can't see many on the right going for him, though, even though he's fairly centrist. They see him as a liberal because his pet issues are often liberal. For them he's synonymous with light bulb and soda tyranny. Donors, establishment types—sure. But not the base.

GonzoTheGreat
01-24-2016, 05:13 AM
From what little I remember of reading about your elections, I think that if the electoral college can't agree upon a candidate then it is thrown to the House. Would that be a good idea for liberally inclined people?

Terez
01-24-2016, 09:55 AM
That hasn't happened since 1825. Also, if that happens then the House votes by state delegation (each state gets one vote), so that favors Republicans even more than usual.

Kimon
01-24-2016, 10:29 AM
That hasn't happened since 1825. Also, if that happens then the House votes by state delegation (each state gets one vote), so that favors Republicans even more than usual.

There were similar shenanigans in 1876 too with Hayes and the Republicans (albeit back when they were the good guys) stealing the election from Tilden. That wasn't technically a tied electoral vote, but 20 contested, and crucial (Tilden just needed one of the 20 to win the election, Hayes needed all 20) votes that were put to a delegation that conveniently had 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats. You can guess how they voted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876

It essentially happened in 2000 as well. Gore clearly won the popular vote, and probably won the electoral college, but that time it was a partisan vote by the Supreme Court rather than by Congress that stole the election.

Terez
01-24-2016, 10:51 AM
I was talking specifically about Gonzo's scenario, not general "times the popular vote didn't decide the election" or what have you.

Kimon
01-24-2016, 11:50 AM
I was talking specifically about Gonzo's scenario, not general "times the popular vote didn't decide the election" or what have you.

I know, but that's essentially what happened in both 1876 and 2000 as well, which also underscores the unlikelihood that the House would ever again exclusively decide the issue as it had in 1824, as the circumstances that led to the problem in that year were replicated, but with a different means of resolution in both 1876 and 2000. It wasn't the popular vote (since both Tilden and Gore won that). It wasn't the electoral college, as no one knew who had won that in either 1876 or 2000. In 1824 when the same happened (Jackson winning the popular, no one winning the electoral college), it was the House of Reps, as per Gonzo's scenario. In 1876 the delegation that decided the election after the electoral college was disputed was a commission of sitting senators and representatives and Supreme Court Justices - probably in hopes of avoiding the corrupt conclusion that ended the 1824 election. Three from the majority party in each the Senate and House, and two from the minority. That rendered 5 from each, as the dems controlled the House and the republicans controlled the Senate. Then five SC justices, which meant 2 dems and three republicans. Hence a total of 8 republicans and 7 dems, and the extra republican was the difference, since as with the situation in 2000, no one had a clue what really had happened, and so it came down to politics rather than to who really had more votes, since both sides were convinced that they had won. In 2000, again no one knew who won the electoral college. Sending it to the House had clearly been shown, twice (1824 and 1876), to be an inevitably corrupt process, so instead they turned instead to just the Supreme Court, which unfortunately was also a partisan rather than impartial decision. Hence whenever Gonzo's scenario happens, as it had all three of those years, it just has come down to which side has more seats at whatever deciding body, which now would again clearly, and overwhelmingly, be the Republicans.

Back on topic, apparently Ed Rendell told the NYT that he'd probably vote for Bloomberg over Sanders, but thinks that Mike won't run if it's Hillary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html

Edward G. Rendell, the former governor of Pennsylvania and a past Democratic National Committee chairman, said he believed Mr. Bloomberg could compete in the race if activist candidates on the left and right prevailed in the party primaries.

“Mike Bloomberg for president rests on the not-impossible but somewhat unlikely circumstance of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz versus Bernie Sanders,” said Mr. Rendell, a close ally of Mrs. Clinton’s who is also a friend of Mr. Bloomberg’s. “If Hillary wins the nomination, Hillary is mainstream enough that Mike would have no chance, and Mike’s not going to go on a suicide mission.”

In a three-way race featuring Mr. Sanders and Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Rendell said he might back the former New York mayor.

“As a lifelong Democrat, as a former party chairman, it would be very hard for me to do that,” he said. “But I would certainly take a look at it — absolutely.”

GonzoTheGreat
01-24-2016, 12:48 PM
All right, this is getting interesting. Suppose the electoral college ends up 40% Sanders, 40% Bloomberg and 20% Carson (who hasn't dropped out, yet, and thus may end up as the one all Republicans gather behind). Then what?

Kimon
01-24-2016, 01:03 PM
All right, this is getting interesting. Suppose the electoral college ends up 40% Sanders, 40% Bloomberg and 20% Carson (who hasn't dropped out, yet, and thus may end up as the one all Republicans gather behind). Then what?

Scenario 1:

It goes to the House, all the Republicans vote for Carson, the Dems split between Bloomberg and Sanders. We're stuck with president Carson.

Scenario 2:

Some mixed delegation is formed. Same result as above. President Carson.

Scenario 3:

It goes to the Supreme Court. Who knows. Maybe President Bloomberg, depending on who Roberts and Scalia feel more comfortable with between Bloomberg and Carson, which considering that they are at least literate and non-Evangelical Republicans, probably Bloomberg.

Scenario 4:

It goes to House, Republicans refuse to vote for a black man (Carson) or a Jew (Bloomberg and Sanders, not that they'd vote for a Socialist Jew anyway). We get President some random hick from the South.

Scenario 5:

South secedes. We all rejoice. The North becomes a Utopia, the South quickly becomes the sh*thole that it has always longed to be. We build a wall along the Ohio River to keep the hillbillies from fleeing north back into civilization.

The Unreasoner
01-24-2016, 02:16 PM
You guys know that it's not 'one man, one vote' if this goes to the House. It's one State, one vote. Which, since the great state of California (approximately half the size of the entire UK in terms of GDP and population) has the same voting rights as an abandoned shithole like Wyoming, we're fucked.

Kimon
01-24-2016, 02:47 PM
You guys know that it's not 'one man, one vote' if this goes to the House. It's one State, one vote. Which, since the great state of California (approximately half the size of the entire UK in terms of GDP and population) has the same voting rights as an abandoned shithole like Wyoming, we're fucked.

In Wyoming's defense, it's not so much abandoned as never occupied. Still, when you have twice as many cattle (1.2 million) as people (580,000), you shouldn't be a state. Especially when you have fewer people than both the District of Columbia (670,000) and Puerto Rico (3.5 million).

The electoral college is a bit archaic, but for the most part has worked fine, and has helped to rectify those types of imbalances of representation. Nonetheless, when it fails to produce a clear winner, the election should then be decided purely by the winner of the popular vote, not by who happens to have a slight advantage in Congress or the Supreme Court.

The Unreasoner
01-24-2016, 04:35 PM
Nonetheless, when it fails to produce a clear winner, the election should then be decided purely by the winner of the popular vote, not by who happens to have a slight advantage in Congress or the Supreme Court.
I couldn't agree to that. Certainly not after the fact. Maybe if the policy was put in place now, and adequately communicated to the public. But as much as I would have preferred Gore over Bush (even before we saw the nature of a Bush presidency), this policy is clearly unfair. What about Texas Democrats and Californian Republicans who don't vote simply because they know it won't affect the outcome? Or Texas Republicans and Californian Democrats who didn't vote for the same reason? There's no way to know how to fairly settle a disputed election in our current system, beyond the (deeply flawed) mechanism currently dictated by the Constitution.

What we need to do is get rid of the Electoral College altogether. And gerrymandering, but good luck there.

Davian93
01-24-2016, 07:23 PM
If Sanders won the nom (very unlikely) and Bloomberg ran, it'd throw the election to the House at best and that's a slam-dunk GOP victory. If he ran and it didn't go to the House, it'd be because Trump won an outright majority.

So Bloomberg is probably the dumbest POS in existence.

Davian93
01-24-2016, 07:25 PM
In Wyoming's defense, it's not so much abandoned as never occupied. Still, when you have twice as many cattle (1.2 million) as people (580,000), you shouldn't be a state. Especially when you have fewer people than both the District of Columbia (670,000) and Puerto Rico (3.5 million).

The electoral college is a bit archaic, but for the most part has worked fine, and has helped to rectify those types of imbalances of representation. Nonetheless, when it fails to produce a clear winner, the election should then be decided purely by the winner of the popular vote, not by who happens to have a slight advantage in Congress or the Supreme Court.

DC is specifically considered a federal district per the Constitution so it'd likely require an Amendment for them to get statehood which will never ever EVER happen since it'd give the Dems 1 more Rep and (more importantly) 2 more Senators given its extreme Left slant. PR has had a chance at statehood multiple times now and turned it down. They get all the benefits of being in the US without any of the downsides so it makes sense for them to not be a State.

GonzoTheGreat
01-25-2016, 04:08 AM
In Wyoming's defense, it's not so much abandoned as never occupied. Still, when you have twice as many cattle (1.2 million) as people (580,000), you shouldn't be a state.
Can't they count each head of cattle as two fifths of a person?
That'd be right in the spirit of the Constitution, even if it isn't quite a literal reading of it.

Nazbaque
01-25-2016, 05:48 AM
Can't they count each head of cattle as two fifths of a person?
That'd be right in the spirit of the Constitution, even if it isn't quite a literal reading of it.

The average human isn't that smart Gonzo.

GonzoTheGreat
01-25-2016, 06:31 AM
The average human isn't that smart Gonzo.
That problem didn't stop the actual three fifths from appearing in the Constitution, did it?

Nazbaque
01-25-2016, 06:40 AM
That problem didn't stop the actual three fifths from appearing in the Constitution, did it?

That doesn't make insulting innocent and honorable animals right.

Terez
01-25-2016, 06:46 AM
Y'all. Let's not get too meta here.

GonzoTheGreat
01-25-2016, 07:52 AM
Actually, I think that getting a competent, rational and sensible Congress could be more important than whatever president you get. After all, Congress can impeach the president, but not the other way around. So it is clear where the checks and balances are supposed to be.

Kimon
01-25-2016, 05:03 PM
Actually, I think that getting a competent, rational and sensible Congress could be more important than whatever president you get. After all, Congress can impeach the president, but not the other way around. So it is clear where the checks and balances are supposed to be.

The main problem with Congress is gerrymandering. It has created a situation in which the Republicans are vastly over-represented compared to their actual vote allotment in many states. Consistently Blue states at the Gubernatorial, Senatorial, and Presidential level should not also be consistently Red at the House level. That is a clear symptom that something is wrong. Gerrymandering also creates seats for both parties that are so safe that the holders of those seats are only at risk within party, not across parties, hence allowing for the election of the types of extremists that could never be produced by a more diverse constituency.

That's not to say that this is the only truly egregious flaw in our system, but it, and lobbying are the two great cancers eating away at the body politic.

The Unreasoner
01-25-2016, 06:47 PM
My favorite thing about Trump is how much the Koch brothers hate him.

Kimon
02-01-2016, 10:54 PM
Not really worthy of a new thread, but Iowa is making sure everyone wonders once again why they are given precedence. Huckabee in '08, then Santorum in '12, and now Cruz in '16.

Meanwhile, amongst the sane, Iowa might also be the political denouement for Hillary. She might just squeak out the victory, but it certainly looks like Bernie is going to come out just ahead, and then trounce her in New Hampshire.

Terez
02-01-2016, 11:02 PM
Not really worthy of a new thread...
On Malazan we have a nice generic American Politics thread, since it's a diverse global forum. Lots of excited people tonight. It's Iowa, and it only matters so much, but they are first. And we have drop-outs; O'Malley and Huckabee are already gone.

Meanwhile, amongst the sane, Iowa might also be the political denouement for Hillary. She might just squeak out the victory, but it certainly looks like Bernie is going to come out just ahead, and then trounce her in New Hampshire.
She already declared victory. Her lead has only diminished since then.

Southpaw2012
02-01-2016, 11:08 PM
I think O'Malley and Gilmore got a total of 30 votes. Jk, but not really. It always shocks me to see Trump on a Republican ticket with how liberal he truly is. He's kinda like Sanders; loud, angry rhetoric that people hear and blindly follow.

I also find it hilarious how Republicans "hate" minorities and the top 4 candidates tonight had 2 Hispanic candidates and 1 African American. Democrats have an old white woman and an old white guy. Perhaps pissed off Oscar actors need to boycott the Democratic Party.

The Unreasoner
02-01-2016, 11:15 PM
It always shocks me to see Trump on a Republican ticket with how liberal he truly is. He's kinda like Sanders; loud, angry rhetoric that people hear and blindly follow.
Oh, please tell me you actually are a Cruz supporter. That would just be too perfect.

The Unreasoner
02-01-2016, 11:18 PM
She already declared victory. Her lead has only diminished since then.
It doesn't look like it will go away though. I know a lot of people who will support Hillary reluctantly, but will revolt against Sanders.

The bottom line is: he can't deliver on anything, and a 70% tax rate on high income owners won't fly in CA or NY.

Terez
02-01-2016, 11:34 PM
Introducing the Hillarybro!

The Unreasoner
02-01-2016, 11:36 PM
Introducing the Hillarybro!
If you mean me, I'm not voting at all. I'll vote Bloomberg in the general if he runs. Otherwise, it's Hillary's to lose. I can't help her, nor do I wish to.

Kimon
02-01-2016, 11:39 PM
I think O'Malley and Gilmore got a total of 30 votes. Jk, but not really. It always shocks me to see Trump on a Republican ticket with how liberal he truly is. He's kinda like Sanders; loud, angry rhetoric that people hear and blindly follow.

I also find it hilarious how Republicans "hate" minorities and the top 4 candidates tonight had 2 Hispanic candidates and 1 African American. Democrats have an old white woman and an old white guy. Perhaps pissed off Oscar actors need to boycott the Democratic Party.

Concerning the former, Trump isn't a liberal, he's a centrist, and moreover a narcissistic plutocratic demagogue. Concerning the latter, both Cruz and Carson have something rather obvious in common in addition to both being minorities - they're both evangelicals. Moreover, as demagogic as Trump is, neither Cruz nor Carson are anywhere near as likely to be the eventual candidate on your side as either Trump or Rubio. And for all your fixation on who is or is not a minority, keep in mind, that Sanders is much more a minority than any of those four, as he is not just Jewish, but an agnostic socialist Jew.

The Unreasoner
02-01-2016, 11:42 PM
Moreover, as demagogic as Trump is, neither Cruz nor Carson are anywhere near as likely to be the eventual candidate on your side as either Trump or Rubio.
Did you see the Atlantic piece on Rubio essentially becoming Trump-lite? RIP GOP...

And for all your fixation on who is or is not a minority, keep in mind, that Sanders is much more a minority than any of those four, as he is not just Jewish, but an agnostic socialist Jew.
I don't think he really gives a shit.

Southpaw2012
02-01-2016, 11:47 PM
Oh, please tell me you actually are a Cruz supporter. That would just be too perfect.

Damn right I am. I want a president who will stand up for America and our allies, and call radical Islamic terrorism what it truly is. Sorry, I don't support Sanders and his pledge to increase taxes and send us deeper into debt. Sanders who wants government to grow and control our every move. It's pretty easy to identify a Sanders fan.

Kimon
02-01-2016, 11:48 PM
Did you see the Atlantic piece on Rubio essentially becoming Trump-lite? RIP GOP...

I don't think he really gives a shit.

It will be interesting to see what happens in New Hampshire. If Rubio or Kasich wins there then all the traditional money will flow to them to help tourniquet this nonsense and smother Cruz and Trump before the damage is irreparable. If Trump wins...

On the other hand, Trump would clearly be the toughest candidate for any democrat to beat in the general. I'm just not sure that Bernie could beat any of these Republicans. Even Cruz. Nonetheless, even many Republicans would likely be horrified at the thought of that schmuck as president.

Southpaw2012
02-01-2016, 11:50 PM
Concerning the former, Trump isn't a liberal, he's a centrist, and moreover a narcissistic plutocratic demagogue. Concerning the latter, both Cruz and Carson have something rather obvious in common in addition to both being minorities - they're both evangelicals. Moreover, as demagogic as Trump is, neither Cruz nor Carson are anywhere near as likely to be the eventual candidate on your side as either Trump or Rubio. And for all your fixation on who is or is not a minority, keep in mind, that Sanders is much more a minority than any of those four, as he is not just Jewish, but an agnostic socialist Jew.

Trump preaches what liberals preach on a daily basis. Unfortunately his fiery rhetoric convinces the ignorant, very much like Sanders. Sanders isn't a minority. If that's the case, you can label many more people as minorities.

Southpaw2012
02-01-2016, 11:51 PM
It will be interesting to see what happens in New Hampshire. If Rubio or Kasich wins there then all the traditional money will flow to them to help tourniquet this nonsense and smother Cruz and Trump before the damage is irreparable. If Trump wins...

On the other hand, Trump would clearly be the toughest candidate for any democrat to beat in the general. I'm just not sure that Bernie could beat any of these Republicans. Even Cruz. Nonetheless, even many Republicans would likely be horrified at the thought of that schmuck as president.

The GOP establishment is garbage, and will likely throw support behind Rubio.

The Unreasoner
02-01-2016, 11:52 PM
Damn right I am.
Ha. HA. HAHAHAHAAHAHA...
Lol. I didn't dare hope that you would actually support the most personally despised candidate for president. But, as I said, a perfect fit.
It's pretty easy to identify a Sanders fan.
Is it?

Kimon
02-01-2016, 11:54 PM
Trump preaches what liberals preach on a daily basis. Unfortunately his fiery rhetoric convinces the ignorant, very much like Sanders. Sanders isn't a minority. If that's the case, you can label many more people as minorities.

Sanders is a populist and an ideologue, but not a demagogue. It is a fine distinction, but one that should be readily apparent. As for this minority nonsense, really Southpaw? He is both Jewish, a minority, and agnostic, even more of a minority. The term does not only apply to skin color. If it did it could not be applied to Cruz or Rubio either.

The Unreasoner
02-02-2016, 02:20 AM
From the New Yorker:
DES MOINES (The Borowitz Report (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report))—Senator Ted Cruz’s stunning victory in the Iowa caucuses is serving as a beacon of hope to despised people across the nation, a number of disliked Americans confirmed on Monday.
In interviews from coast to coast, dozens of pariahs said that the Cruz triumph meant that “the sky’s the limit” for widely hated people like them.
Tracy Klugian, a real-estate agent from Jupiter, Florida, said that the fact that she has systematically alienated her co-workers, by bad-mouthing them to management and stealing their listings, no longer seems like an obstacle to advancement.
“Sometimes, knowing that everyone in the office hates me so much that they won’t even ride in an elevator with me kind of brought me down,” she said. “That’s why this Cruz thing is such a game-changer.”
Chuck Greister, a general contractor who has incurred the wrath of hundreds of clients for his shoddy work and flagrant, who-gives-a-crap attitude, said that Ted Cruz’s victory in Iowa has “been nothing short of inspirational.”
“Showing up four hours late or drinking on the job site—sure, loads of people hated me for that,” Greister said. “But a little hate never stopped a gentleman named Mr. Ted Cruz.”
In the wake of the Iowa caucuses, America’s most unlikeable people were lighting up Facebook with comments in praise of Cruz, bursting with pride that one of their number had a legitimate shot at the White House.
“There are a lot of despised little kids out there who probably think that they’ll never be President,” Klugian said. “Ted Cruz gives them a reason to dream.”
lol. And he's batshit. And hideous. But it's the 'universally despised' bit that makes me smile.

I am enjoying the destruction of the GOP far more that I thought I would. More good news: the Establishment wants to begin directing resources towards Rubio, but the Bush family is personally offended that he 'stepped out of line', so to speak, and Right to Rise still has 50 million in its war chest. And they're aiming their guns at the Rubio camp. An Establishment civil war, a lunatic uprising, and an authoritarian juggernaut.

And I thought 2012 was fun.

And to clarify: under different circumstances, I might go for Bernie. But, as I've said, he can't deliver with Congress like it is. Maybe he can get nominated, maybe he can beat whoever survives the Republican circus, but the latest he will lose is 2020, when supporters see no results and can't be rallied again.

Terez
02-02-2016, 01:28 PM
And to clarify: under different circumstances, I might go for Bernie. But, as I've said, he can't deliver with Congress like it is. Maybe he can get nominated, maybe he can beat whoever survives the Republican circus, but the latest he will lose is 2020, when supporters see no results and can't be rallied again.
Hillary wouldn't be able to deliver any better than Bernie will be able to; that's just the reality of Congress right now. Elizabeth Warren wrote an op-ed in the NYT the other day about what a president can do without Congress:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/opinion/elizabeth-warren-one-way-to-rebuild-our-institutions.html

Possibly the closest thing we'll get to a Bernie endorsement from Warren any time soon.

Also, I love this article about how much the Democratic Party leadership sucks:

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/2/10892724/bernie-sanders-wake-up-call

Davian93
02-02-2016, 02:01 PM
Nobody can deliver in Congress as we have a broken system. The best any can do is keep the Court from going more conservative and block the outright nuttiness that is the current GOP.


That said, obviously I'm a Bernie supporter.

The Unreasoner
02-02-2016, 02:02 PM
I'm not saying the president is powerless, just that everything that is motivating the base is impossible (And that a 70% tax rate on high earners won't fly).

On the contrary: I am saying the president, despite Congress, is so powerful that I'm not willing to turn over the position to the GOP in four years. Or even eight, but Bernie has 'One-Term-President' written on the walls around him.

I like Bloomberg well enough. And I like Bill Clinton, Biden, and Brown more, but I will support Hillary tepidly unless she drops the ball. Everything is in her favor, both the Party (who has played some nasty tricks in order to anoint her before a single vote was cast) and the national demographics.

I do support socialism, at least in a hypothetical 'eventually' sense. But I don't think it'll fly just yet (wait another ten years, when the Southpaws of the world have been unemployed for five years and unemployable for three), and I find Sanders unappealing on a purely superficial level (one thing every US President has had since Ford left was charm. That's not a streak I'm willing to break yet. Though Hillary is only charming in a theoretical sense).

Davian93
02-02-2016, 02:06 PM
(And that a 70% tax rate on high earners won't fly).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowes t_Income_Earners.jpg/440px-Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowes t_Income_Earners.jpg

Why not? It worked fine from the mid-30s to 1980...Its not as if most ever pay that anyway due to exemptions and the high cutoff for that part of the graduated scale.

The Unreasoner
02-02-2016, 02:18 PM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowes t_Income_Earners.jpg/440px-Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowes t_Income_Earners.jpg

Why not? It worked fine from the mid-30s to 1980...Its not as if most ever pay that anyway due to exemptions and the high cutoff for that part of the graduated scale.
The one percent is stronger today than they were then. I'm not saying it won't work mathematically or economically (though the latter is debatable), just that they've grown used to paying 20, and will fight any bump more than 20 (effective. So 40% effective rate on high earners). And, it's politically impossible to raise taxes that high.

That being said, debt doesn't frighten me nearly as much as it does Southpaw. I believe we need to discourage more kids from going to college, but making it economically painful hasn't worked. So, let college be payed for by the Federal Government. Have a few dozen forms that need to be filed in a draconian way, and weed out the weak and stupid that way.

Davian93
02-02-2016, 02:26 PM
I believe we need to discourage more kids from going to college, but making it economically painful hasn't worked.

That ignores reality. In today's world, you don't get any job beyond burger flipper without a Bachelors...and anything into management tends to prefer a Masters tacked onto that.

Hell, at my office, every single one of the entry level admins has a 4 year degree. Its ridiculous but its the reality of today. A 4 year degree is the same as a HS diploma 30 years ago. Which is why college should be free.

The Unreasoner
02-02-2016, 02:37 PM
That ignores reality. In today's world, you don't get any job beyond burger flipper without a Bachelors...and anything into management tends to prefer a Masters tacked onto that.

Hell, at my office, every single one of the entry level admins has a 4 year degree. Its ridiculous but its the reality of today. A 4 year degree is the same as a HS diploma 30 years ago. Which is why college should be free.
I think it's an inefficient reality, though. I have friends who went to Cal, UCLA, MIT, Cal Tech, and Yale. None of them are fundamentally smarter today than when they graduated HS. I'm not saying they learned nothing, just not their 50-200 grand worth. Fewer graduates will lead to more training on the job, which I actually do have faith in. I learned more in 6 months of work than in an entire year of a Master's program. And I keep meeting 'Business Majors' who are basically high-functioning special ed students, and they won't shut the fuck up about wanting a job. And 9 out of ten are useless networking robots.

Davian93
02-02-2016, 03:26 PM
I think it's an inefficient reality, though. I have friends who went to Cal, UCLA, MIT, Cal Tech, and Yale. None of them are fundamentally smarter today than when they graduated HS. I'm not saying they learned nothing, just not their 50-200 grand worth. Fewer graduates will lead to more training on the job, which I actually do have faith in. I learned more in 6 months of work than in an entire year of a Master's program. And I keep meeting 'Business Majors' who are basically high-functioning special ed students, and they won't shut the fuck up about wanting a job. And 9 out of ten are useless networking robots.

Businesses pretty much refuse to do on the job training anymore...because in their minds, its a net cost, not an investment in the future. Its about the bottom line so they don't want to have to train someone. Yes, that's inefficient but that's the current mentality. Its all about the next quarter, not the next 5-10 years.

I'd agree on the reality that a college degree doesn't make you smarter. I know lots of utter idiots that have masters and above...all it meant is they either have rich parents or a ton of student loans. I also don't know how many interviews I've sat in as a manager where the others in the room will look at the resumes and go "this guy has a masters!!!" as if its the holy grail and favor him or her over another better candidate that "only" has a bachelors...even when the job doesn't have a degree requirement. People are stupid.

Kimon
02-02-2016, 05:29 PM
I'm not saying the president is powerless, just that everything that is motivating the base is impossible (And that a 70% tax rate on high earners won't fly).


We don't need a 70% tax bracket to accomplish most of what he wants, we just need to alter the priorities of expenditure. Our taxes are not meaningfully lower than other Western nations, we just spend far too much on defense to have enough left to spend adequately on infrastructure and welfare.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26327114

That doesn't mean that most of what is motivating the base is possible to achieve, but Congress is the obstacle, not any logistical implausibility. Also, I wouldn't characterize raising taxes on the rich as what is motivating his supporters. The main difference between him (and Elizabeth Warren) and Hillary is trust. We want accountability for Wall Street. Hillary can't really be trusted on that issue. But the others that matter to most on the left? The environment? Both are trusted. Congress is the hindrance. Single Payer? Congress again is the problem. Free college? That one is a bit loony. On the other hand, the rising cost of higher education is a very legitimate concern, as too is the crippling nature of college loan debt. Reform and oversight is needed on both of those fronts. Congress? Republicans again unlikely to care, if not openly bought by the enemy. Getting money out of politics? This is the biggest one. Overturning Citizens United would help, and for any Democrat in the presidency can be of great help, and Republican of further disastrous consequence. The composition of the Supreme Court is still the greatest imperative. Another Republican and not only is Citizens United upheld, not only is the ACA perhaps overturned, but abortion clearly would be their target.

The Unreasoner
02-02-2016, 05:55 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/yhnul.jpg


On what's motivating the base:
I'm under the impression it's reforming Wall Street, single-payer, and free college. I agree that most of his supporters don't actually care how much taxes the 1% pays, so long as it's seen as fair. But the other three are not achievable. Neither is cutting military spending. I think you might be able to get taxes to 40, but that's it.

In any case, you're looking at major political fatigue among his supporters, and a massive backlash in 2018. And I don't want to bet on the GOP nominating another candidate as weak as Mitt Romney in 2020.

Kimon
02-02-2016, 06:25 PM
On what's motivating the base:
I'm under the impression it's reforming Wall Street, single-payer, and free college. I agree that most of his supporters don't actually care how much taxes the 1% pays, so long as it's seen as fair. But the other three are not achievable. Neither is cutting military spending. I think you might be able to get taxes to 40, but that's it.

In any case, you're looking at major political fatigue among his supporters, and a massive backlash in 2018. And I don't want to bet on the GOP nominating another candidate as weak as Mitt Romney in 2020.

I can't believe that any substantial percentage of his supporters believe that free college is realistic. Reforming college loans? Yes. But free college? That's a pipe dream unless you restrict access based upon merit like in Germany. That would simply be too abrupt, and controversial, a change to ever be feasible here. The British model on the other hand would perhaps be possible. Something needs to be done to tackle the rising cost of higher education, but I refuse to believe that most of his supporters really are motivated by a fantasy of free college for all. Subsidized? Maybe if Congress was more amenable. But free? Even with a completely blue Congress, that isn't happening.

Cutting defense spending either needs to happen, or else infrastructure spending should be folded into the defense budget, and then should become almost the entire budget. This (infrastructure vs defense spending), Single Payer, Wall Street Reform, Lobbying Reform, and anxiety over Global Warming is what motivates most on the Left. Well, all that and contempt for the 2nd Amendment, but Bernie actually isn't a particularly reliable ally on that one...

The Unreasoner
02-02-2016, 06:31 PM
Not free college, no. But the ones I've talked to want substantial student loan relief. I don't see that happening.

Terez
02-02-2016, 06:34 PM
I'm not saying the president is powerless, just that everything that is motivating the base is impossible (And that a 70% tax rate on high earners won't fly).

On the contrary: I am saying the president, despite Congress, is so powerful that I'm not willing to turn over the position to the GOP in four years. Or even eight, but Bernie has 'One-Term-President' written on the walls around him.
And Hillary doesn't? Not only is she hated by the right as much as Obama and perhaps more, there's a substantial segment of the left that doesn't like her. I don't much like Bill either, for the record; most of the time I think I like Hillary more.

I've mentioned before that my own feelings might be remnants of my Republican childhood in Mississippi, but I really don't think so. They both have well-documented track records, quite aside from all the conspiracy BS you see on Breitbart and InfoWars.

There are other figures on the left whom I was raised to hate but ended up coming to respect and admire. Jimmy Carter was not the worst president in history and as a human being he's probably the best still living. Anita Hill was not a liar. I was not as into politics as a teenager as I thought I was, so it doesn't go much deeper than that.

I do support socialism, at least in a hypothetical 'eventually' sense. But I don't think it'll fly just yet (wait another ten years, when the Southpaws of the world have been unemployed for five years and unemployable for three)...
What do you even mean when you say you "support socialism"? What is that? State ownership of the means of production? Because that is what right-wingers tend to fear but not at all what mainstream Americans who identify as "socialist" tend to want. They're libertarian socialists and democratic socialists. They want worker-owned means of production and worker protections and a social safety net but they don't want to dismantle capitalism completely. The debate is over how much power capital should have in our economy; in this model taxation is one way to limit the power of capital, but it's only one tool.

Bernie doesn't articulate these things very well. I'm not entirely sure he understands them very well. He needs a better team to help him work on his message, and I'm hoping he'll start getting that with a little momentum from the early states. We'll see.

I find Sanders unappealing on a purely superficial level (one thing every US President has had since Ford left was charm. That's not a streak I'm willing to break yet. Though Hillary is only charming in a theoretical sense).
I get it, and he embarrassed me in the first Democratic debate, and then Hillary said something a little too vicious and I had to stop watching. But I've noticed since then that he's getting better. Self-confidence does a lot for him. I haven't watched any of the debates since then; I just can't stand it when Hillary gets combative. It's not because she's a woman; gawd, please people stop saying this. She play-acts it and puts rhetorical emotion into it, and in all the wrong places. She hit a high point when she said single payer would never, ever come to pass (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG7w3Oey3xs). And I can't help thinking, "This is what she gets passionate about? This is what she gets angry about?" And of course it isn't, and I don't know if she even believes what she said. But it's politically convenient for her to get angry about that particular thing right now.

In defense of his foreign policy bona fides, Bernie tends to remind people of the Iraq vote a lot. He could expand on that, but he usually doesn't, and politically that's smart because the details can get hairy when the Libya nut is cracked, and I'm not entirely sure Bernie is up to that debate. But it resonates when he says: "Experience matters, but so does judgement."

Terez
02-02-2016, 06:53 PM
I can't believe that any substantial percentage of his supporters believe that free college is realistic. Reforming college loans? Yes. But free college? That's a pipe dream unless you restrict access based upon merit like in Germany. That would simply be too abrupt, and controversial, a change to ever be feasible here.
I don't think so; we would just have to go about it in our own way. Usually when people talk about "free college" they're talking about "free tuition" which is not the same thing as "free college" at all. That's why it's smart to have a merit-based hierarchy for universities, community colleges and trade schools. It's not particularly radical; we could stand to organize our society a little better along those lines.

It's not incredibly expensive to do this, if it's done right. The biggest problem is keeping spending under control, particularly at universities.

Cutting defense spending either needs to happen, or else infrastructure spending should be folded into the defense budget, and then should become almost the entire budget. This (infrastructure vs defense spending), Single Payer, Wall Street Reform, Lobbying Reform, and anxiety over Global Warming is what motivates most on the Left.
I have posted on here before that I think it would be really smart to drastically expand and reform the CBs and the Army Corps to oversee federal infrastructure projects and disaster responses. They'd double as a massive standing reserve force, which should make any Republican happy, and they could undo a lot of the damage done during the Bush administration with regards to the privatization of duties traditionally fulfilled by the military itself. Government contracts in operation tend to lack anything resembling real discipline, which is part of why we blow so much money on them, whether military or disaster relief. A military supervisor/safety inspection apparatus working with small contractors could significantly reduce the bloat in the system.

The Unreasoner
02-02-2016, 07:12 PM
And Hillary doesn't? Not only is she hated by the right as much as Obama and perhaps more, there's a substantial segment of the left that doesn't like her.
I think she's politically savvy enough to hold the White House. If Hillary wins, it won't be because people like her. It will be because she skillfully leverages the party's demographic advantages. Maybe enough of her team will join the Sanders operation (if he is nominated) to make sure he doesn't overly rely on enthusiasm and energy, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a bigger (and angrier) PUMA-type movement come out of the Clinton camp instead.

A Bloomberg administration would give us four years of something resembling sanity while the Democratic party regroups and recruits.
What do you even mean when you say you "support socialism"?
It's a fair question. I want a basic income, some nationalization in agriculture, single-payer, and some semi-nationalized construction companies (think Fannie/Freddie) tasked with massive long-term infrastructure projects. I'd also like some utilities to be publicly-owned, a public commercial bank, a public investment bank, and semi-public specialized venture capital firms (along the lines of In Q Tel). Better funding of public defenders and scientific research at public schools. And free in-state public school tuition for students that meet some merit criteria.

I get it, and he embarrassed me in the first Democratic debate, and then Hillary said something a little too vicious and I had to stop watching. But I've noticed since then that he's getting better. Self-confidence does a lot for him. I haven't watched any of the debates since then; I just can't stand it when Hillary gets combative. It's not because she's a woman; gawd, please people stop saying this. She play-acts it and puts rhetorical emotion into it, and in all the wrong places. She hit a high point when she said single payer would never, ever come to pass (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG7w3Oey3xs). And I can't help thinking, "This is what she gets passionate about? This is what she gets angry about?" And of course it isn't, and I don't know if she even believes what she said. But it's politically convenient for her to get angry about that particular thing right now.

It's not exactly something I'm proud of. He is getting better. Hillary comes off as fake as shit, but you at least get the impression that she's trying.

Amusingly, Rubio (probably the most charming candidate in the race) has seemed to lose it. He now comes across as overly scripted and awkward. Though he has nothing on the overwhelming 'creepy' vibe given off by the much-reviled Ted Cruz.

Terez
02-02-2016, 07:42 PM
I think she's politically savvy enough to hold the White House. If Hillary wins, it won't be because people like her. It will be because she skillfully leverages the party's demographic advantages.
I'm not so sure those demographic advantages will hold together under a Hillary administration. I'm not even sure they will hold together for the 2016 general election.

It's not exactly something I'm proud of. He is getting better. Hillary comes off as fake as shit, but you at least get the impression that she's trying.
Trying too hard.

Southpaw2012
02-02-2016, 07:54 PM
Yeah, except she's a crook who should be indicted any day now. The ONLY reason she wouldn't be indicted would be that the Justice Department, unsurprisingly, chooses not to. In that case, the FBI (who has made it known they are sick of her shit) will reveal it. Of course, she will laugh and say "what difference does it make?" Just like she did after Americans lost their lies due to her incompetence and negligence in the handling of a terrorist attack leading up to the 2012 election. If she wins the election, it will be because she's a woman (and we all know how Democrats vote simply for social issues, regardless of what it does to our country) and because she's a Clinton. It always strikes me as interesting that people love the Clinton's so much. I agree with her pledge for women's rights, though I strongly disagree with murder/abortion, but her husband is a woman abuser. It's just ironic, I guess. Honestly, on the Republican side, the only two candidates I can see winning are Cruz or Rubio. I like either one, but I'm sick of the establishment. Unlike the liberal populace, I don't follow whichever candidate promises the most "free stuff." Bernie Sanders is economically illiterate and Hillary is a lying crook who risked national security with her extreme stupidity.

Kimon
02-02-2016, 08:11 PM
Yeah, except she's a crook who should be indicted any day now. The ONLY reason she wouldn't be indicted would be that the Justice Department, unsurprisingly, chooses not to. In that case, the FBI (who has made it known they are sick of her shit) will reveal it. Of course, she will laugh and say "what difference does it make?" Just like she did after Americans lost their lies due to her incompetence and negligence in the handling of a terrorist attack leading up to the 2012 election. If she wins the election, it will be because she's a woman (and we all know how Democrats vote simply for social issues, regardless of what it does to our country) and because she's a Clinton. It always strikes me as interesting that people love the Clinton's so much. I agree with her pledge for women's rights, though I strongly disagree with murder/abortion, but her husband is a woman abuser. It's just ironic, I guess. Honestly, on the Republican side, the only two candidates I can see winning are Cruz or Rubio. I like either one, but I'm sick of the establishment. Unlike the liberal populace, I don't follow whichever candidate promises the most "free stuff." Bernie Sanders is economically illiterate and Hillary is a lying crook who risked national security with her extreme stupidity.

Pray tell, for what specifically should she be prosecuted? Her use of private email as Sec. of State was a poor decision, but how is it criminal negligence unless ex post facto. And Benghazi? Unless you are arguing that the mere decision to send an ambassador in the first place (in which case you would need to indict almost all of Congress) was criminal negligence, she certainly is guilty of nothing individually. You don't like her. That doesn't make her a criminal.

The Unreasoner
02-02-2016, 08:11 PM
on the Republican side, the only two candidates I can see winning are Cruz or Rubio.
Well, you can't fix stupid.

Rubio, maybe. But Cruz? That creepy, greasy, socially-awkward, hated motherfucker? I'd give you better than 10:1 odds on that.

The Unreasoner
02-02-2016, 08:13 PM
Pray tell, for what specifically should she be prosecuted?
He's the dumbest law student in Illinois, he doesn't know. He's just parroting whatever he last read on Facebook and Twitter.

Nazbaque
02-02-2016, 08:20 PM
Well, you can't fix stupid.

Rubio, maybe. But Cruz? That creepy, greasy, socially-awkward, hated motherfucker? I'd give you better than 10:1 odds on that.

So if he bets say a year of being Frenzy's bitch and were to win, you would spend ten or more years as Frenzy's bitch?

Note that this was simply to illustrate the depth of Unreasoner's challenge. There is no point in betting to be Frenzy's bitch as there is no possibility of not being her bitch.

The Unreasoner
02-02-2016, 08:29 PM
Some fun bits from the Onion:
Retreating Clinton Campaign Torches Iowa Town To Slow Advance Of Sanders Volunteers (http://www.theonion.com/article/retreating-clinton-campaign-torches-iowa-town-slow-52261)

And bits of others:
***
Gaffes:

Mar. 2003: In a major goof that will haunt Jeb Bush all along the campaign trail, his brother unilaterally invades Iraq, destabilizing the region indefinitely and vastly increasing the threat of global terror

Aug. 2015: A hot mic picks up every one of Scott Walker’s answers during the first GOP debate

Oct. 2015: In a highly embarrassing debate performance, John Kasich severely misreads the primary-voting public by appealing to their intelligence and dignity

Feb. 2016: American people fail to take threat of Donald Trump becoming president seriously in the final month they could have done something about it

***
And one from LU:
http://40.media.tumblr.com/76e8aa437ddabb91a4792c79c2f48e39/tumblr_o1wh60u8LN1qkt6yoo1_500.png
I could totally buy the last one though...




ETA:
A really creepy Ted Cruz video (https://twitter.com/pzf/status/693882335771676673)

Terez
02-02-2016, 08:57 PM
I posted this one on Malazan a while ago:

Advisors Hopeful Jeb Bush Finally Has Momentum To End Campaign (http://www.theonion.com/article/advisors-hopeful-jeb-bush-finally-has-momentum-end-52282)

Davian93
02-02-2016, 11:42 PM
Jimmy Carter was simply too good a human being to be President. And he had just awful luck along with some very suspicious activity that sunk any chance of a 2nd term due to Iran being utterly unwilling to release hostages right up till the moment he was done. Almost as if there was a back door deal in place there. Not like we ended up giving them s bunch of weapons later on or something...oh wait.

But yeah, Carter was and is a great human being.

Frenzy
02-03-2016, 02:13 AM
So if he bets say a year of being Frenzy's bitch and were to win, you would spend ten or more years as Frenzy's bitch?

Note that this was simply to illustrate the depth of Unreasoner's challenge. There is no point in betting to be Frenzy's bitch as there is no possibility of not being her bitch.

i'm still laughing at Southpaw thinking Jews aren't a minority.

GonzoTheGreat
02-03-2016, 04:31 AM
On the contrary: I am saying the president, despite Congress, is so powerful that I'm not willing to turn over the position to the GOP in four years. Or even eight, but Bernie has 'One-Term-President' written on the walls around him.
You are assuming that the Republicans will suddenly and unexpectedly become utterly sane right after the elections, aren't you?

Because if they don't, if at the next elections they present even nuttier candidates (something which seems likely considering their current track record), then it is not clear to me why Bernie would be in danger of losing such an election. If in 2020 the voters have to decide between Bernie Sanders and Cliven Bundy, would they really go for the latter?

Davian93
02-03-2016, 06:30 AM
i'm still laughing at Southpaw thinking Jews aren't a minority.

Um, to be a minority, wouldn't they have to be a unique small group with a history of discrimination? When I think Jews, that's not exactly what comes to mind. Has another group ever had it quite so easy historically than than the Jewish people?

GonzoTheGreat
02-03-2016, 07:01 AM
Um, to be a minority, wouldn't they have to be a unique small group with a history of discrimination?
Why?
I don't think the discrimination has ever been an official requirement. The nobility in Great Britain is a minority of the population, but they've not particularly been discriminated against anywhere in the last couple of millennia.
And being a small group isn't needed either, apparently. After all, it is a well known fact that women are a minority too, even though there are quite a lot of them.

connabard
02-03-2016, 10:58 AM
Um, to be a minority, wouldn't they have to be a unique small group with a history of discrimination? When I think Jews, that's not exactly what comes to mind. Has another group ever had it quite so easy historically than than the Jewish people?

The sarcasm is so thick here it became physically manifest through my computer