• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Bloomberg gets his ass handed to him in the general: He can never overcome "stop and frisk" among African American voters. No black vote, no Dem winner.
 
Gedunker said:
Bloomberg gets his ass handed to him in the general: He can never overcome "stop and frisk" among African American voters. No black vote, no Dem winner.
Click to expand...
If it is him versus Trump, he still gets the vote. His ability to spend money on positive ads could be the difference maker. I also think that these one topic issues get forgotten quickly. I mean Sanders hates women.... right? Yet women keep voting for him? Why is that? Because he doesn't really hate women, and the things he said were not "forever" issues. Stop and Frisk is something that is a hot button for many D's, but it isn't a "forever" issue, and will likely not be the reason Bloomberg doesn't win.

If Bloomberg's messaging covers the middle America segment (working class, manufacturing, etc.) and somehow convinces people that he, as a billionaire, can relate to them, he wins.

293-245 D's win. Trump gets Florida, Arizona and Ohio, but loses Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. He doesn't need the South to win. He doesn't need Texas, although it should be more in play than ever before. The D calculus is pretty clear - if they can win back Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan they win. They probably need North Carolina too, but that isn't a requirement. 278-260 would be very close, but the D's have 203 electoral college votes pretty solid. They just need to find the other 67. 46 of those are in those three states.... If Florida or Texas ever turned it would be all over for the R's.
 
If it were to come down to Bernie or Bloomberg in the primary fight (I don't think that will be the case), I heard somebody describe that as Bernie's wet dream of a debate. I lolled.

____________________________

I don't think Bernie is walking away with this (yet). If you lump all the votes for the more progressive candidates into one column, and the votes for the rest of the field in another column, he did worse in NH last night than he did in '16 against Clinton. Turn out was also up last night but exit polls aren't showing that new voters were voting for Bernie (they were more likely to vote for Mayor Pete or Amy). He has a very vocal, locked in voting block but so far he hasn't showing that he can grow that block over his performances in '16. He may have the highest floor of any of the serious candidates, but he probably also has the lowest ceiling.

So far, only 2% of the delegates have been apportioned.
 
Absent a capital crime performed on live TV, the president will be re-elected. I started saying two years ago (not that I was the only one) that the D's would royally screw up this golden opportunity and they have. They just don't get it. And for a party that pushes diversity and inclusion at every turn, isn't it ironic that the front-runner is an angry old white guy?
 
MD Planner said:
Absent a capital crime performed on live TV, the president will be re-elected. I started saying two years ago (not that I was the only one) that the D's would royally screw up this golden opportunity and they have. They just don't get it. And for a party that pushes diversity and inclusion at every turn, isn't it ironic that the front-runner is an angry old white guy?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's even a golden opportunity. They could have one of the best candidates in the world, and I still think Trump wins. The dude has incredibly deep roots in rural America for whatever reason, and they will vote for him no matter what he does. I don't understand exactly how economically depressed Americans in the midwest or deep south feel that a billionaire who has repeatedly shown no desire to help others, will somehow help them, but whatever. I think it's the "anti-gov" position, where Trump just does increasingly insane things against the norm, and they eat it up.

Honestly, if it were Trump v. Obama (1st term Obama), I think Trump would still win.
 
giff57 said:
I am not aware of any issues here but I do not participate for the same reason as Hawkeye. I would guess if the move was significant there would be signage and probably a volunteer. Like everything else, if you are not early you are late. If you show up right at 7:00 and something unexpected happens, it's your fault. Ok, Ok I know.... Ok Boomer ;-)
Click to expand...
I have caucused since I moved back to Iowa in 2006, but probably shouldn't. The Dem precinct chair is the former mayor. It is less awkward now that he is out of office. I too don't think being in line by 7 is a big deal. Our site was at the university a couple blocks away and was about a 3 minute walk. Can't complain about that.
 
It's not so much that the people are voting for Trump, their voting against the Dems. The GOP has developed a fear of them Dems coming to give you abortions, take your guns and shoot your god with them. It's no longer about government or what a candidate can do for you, but what the other guy/girl will take from you. The Dems just haven't figured that out or just refuse to play that game. If you want to fix this it will take years of Dems winning low level elections so they can gerrymander back to normal which then wins the high level elections. The GOP played the long con and they are winning.
 
From Slate website:
If you lived in a bubble where Twitter Trump was your sole news source, you’d be pretty fired up, which makes it odd that on Monday the very same Trump White House said it intends to slash a scheduled pay raise for civilian federal employees. Cutting the 2.5 percent raise set for 2021 to 1 percent for millions of federal workers seems a bit austere in the face of such self-proclaimed boom times. Even more absurdly, Trump is justifying ordering the cut on the grounds that the country is in the midst of a “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare,” which the White House says authorizes the president to “implement alternative plans for pay adjustments.”
So which is it? The best economy in the history of economies or a national economic emergency? Either way, somebody’s lying


tRump loves to announce how he's made the greatest economy, well maybe behind the curtain there's a little man saying we're not doing as great (but don't tell anyone).
 
AG74683 said:
I don't think it's even a golden opportunity. They could have one of the best candidates in the world, and I still think Trump wins. The dude has incredibly deep roots in rural America for whatever reason, and they will vote for him no matter what he does.
Click to expand...

I agree; too many democrats keep failing to recognize how fervent Trump supporters are - a number of people I know think he is a gift from G-d. How do you overcome that perspective to have people vote with any degree of rationality. All of the statements and actions he has done so far, which would have destroyed any other president, has only emboldened the support.

I personally think Biden is past his prime and trying to ride on the coattails of Obama, but that approach only would have worked for 2016. Bernie is also going to be a tough push, and being the oldest candidate is also of concern. I do think that Pete and Amy are the best in the overall D camp, but I do worry about their ability in the national election. I think they are good, but being good is not necessarily enough to turn the tide.
 
It is looking more and more like there will never be a GenX President. The Boomers will pass the torch to Millenials and GenX will sit on the sidelines and watch it happen. Which is just emblematic of GenX.
 
dw914er said:
I agree; too many democrats keep failing to recognize how fervent Trump supporters are - a number of people I know think he is a gift from G-d. How do you overcome that perspective to have people vote with any degree of rationality. All of the statements and actions he has done so far, which would have destroyed any other president, has only emboldened the support.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

However, what are your thoughts on this? Why do people like him? I can tell you he gets no love in our house hold and was only fractionally better than Hillary.
 
AG74683 said:
The dude has incredibly deep roots in rural America for whatever reason, and they will vote for him no matter what he does. I don't understand exactly how economically depressed Americans in the midwest or deep south feel that a billionaire who has repeatedly shown no desire to help others, will somehow help them, but whatever.
Click to expand...

He tells "white america" what they want to hear. He essentially runs a campaign that strikes back to what yesteryear was all about. Steel / Coal mine jobs are coming back. Blame Mexicans for stealing jobs south of the border through trade agreements. Build a wall to keep those that don't look like us out. Make fun of people that are perceived to be inferior to me. Government doesn't work at all and spreads missinformation. Reduce taxes because we pay too much in taxes. What has the government done for you?

He connects with middle america because for the most part, middle america is an isolated bunch and want instant oatmeal answers to complex problems. They need a "boogeyman" to point to problems. The queers are changing the way we use bathrooms. The asians are stealing jobs. American's have gone pussy compared to the greatest generation.

This man tugs at the deep inner soul of what most middle, late, and 20ish, poorly educated, no way to climb up white americans believe in. If you can't admit it, than that's part of the problem. On NPR you hear stories like Anita, and you think WTF? and then remember, oh yea, its middle america.


Sorry people, I am not gonna sugar coat this.
 
arcplans said:
He connects with middle america because for the most part, middle america is an isolated bunch and want instant oatmeal answers to complex problems. They need a "boogeyman" to point to problems. The queers are changing the way we use bathrooms. The asians are stealing jobs. American's have gone pussy compared to the greatest generation.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of what you say is spot on but I don't agree with this take. That's far too simplistic. Well, except for the last sentence. That is absolutely, 100% truth.
 
estromberg said:
It is looking more and more like there will never be a GenX President. The Boomers will pass the torch to Millenials and GenX will sit on the sidelines and watch it happen. Which is just emblematic of GenX.
Click to expand...

As a jaded and sarcastic GenXer I have to agree. Like everything in our lives the Boomers are holding on too long and when it comes to be our turn everyone will say you're too old and pass it to a Millennial. At the same time I'm not sure GenX wants to be involved in politics. We have a healthy cynicism of all things government and big business and well... everything.
 
DVD said:
As a jaded and sarcastic GenXer I have to agree. Like everything in our lives the Boomers are holding on too long and when it comes to be our turn everyone will say you're too old and pass it to a Millennial. At the same time I'm not sure GenX wants to be involved in politics. We have a healthy cynicism of all things government and big business and well... everything.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And as I have gotten older, my Gen X cynicism has gotten much deeper and more well founded.
 
Well it looks like the Democrats are now working to actively sabotage Bloomberg so I guess he's not their man. There's no doubt the recent headlines hitting CNN regarding some things he's said in the past are courtesy of the party. CNN has always been left leaning.
 
AG74683 said:
Well it looks like the Democrats are now working to actively sabotage Bloomberg so I guess he's not their man. There's no doubt the recent headlines hitting CNN regarding some things he's said in the past are courtesy of the party. CNN has always been left leaning.
Click to expand...


Yea... because the democrat machine is so great at taking down rich guys from New York City.... :r:
 
AG74683 said:
Well it looks like the Democrats are now working to actively sabotage Bloomberg so I guess he's not their man. There's no doubt the recent headlines hitting CNN regarding some things he's said in the past are courtesy of the party. CNN has always been left leaning.
Click to expand...
Which is surprising because the party clearly doesn't want Bernie either.... so it is Biden or bust?
 
www.wsj.com

Opinion | Mike Bloomberg Could Pull It Off

Biden’s collapse created a vacuum in the center, and the former mayor has the money and will to fill it.
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

Interesting article on Bloomberg.... but the line that got me was about Sanders...

But his nomination would split the party. Too many Democrats want a new and deeper liberalism but not socialism. They don’t want a revolution, they want a nicer country. The suburban women everyone is supposedly fighting for? When that affluent liberal mother in Summit, N.J., finds out socialism isn’t just progressive social policy, she’s going to find herself saying a sentence she never thought she’d say: “We worked hard for this, you know.” Bernie Sanders has the power to turn her into Barbara Bush.
Click to expand...
 
As soon as I saw where Warren had said this, I made this little meme.

Then I went on FB and opened a call for musicians amongst my friends. Got a 20-piece band already.
 

Attachments

  • parade.jpg
    parade.jpg
    133.6 KB · Views: 49
Planit said:
So tRump wants to be Chief Law Officer now.
Click to expand...
I think it clearly shows that if Trump is your friend, you will benefit from his Presidency. This isn't about the rule of law, or about our country, it is about a person, who likes power, and gives advantage to those who support him or are liked by him. Rod B, is a perfect example of someone who should have been in jail for the crimes he committed. But he was on Apprentice, and Trump could point to the "sham" of a trail or witch hunt investigation, or something.

At this point I don't know how I can even try to come up with valid reasons for the things Trump does. He clearly just is doing things because he wants to. He just likes the power.
 
Planit said:
So tRump wants to be Chief Law Officer now.
Click to expand...

According to Article II of the Constitution:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

While it does not state that he is the Chief Law Officer, he is not all that far off. In regards to what he did, I think Hink is spot on with his assessment. There was a few people that I know who were saying that these were political and that a Democrat would never do such a thing... forgetting that Rob Blajovich is a democrat.

On a side note, what if there were no primaries and there was one date that everyone voted for a person. No letters behind anyone's name, no straight party voting because no parties would be listed. And have this as a popular vote. What do you think would happen? Not saying it is a good idea or not, but with the recent primary activities, it got me wondering if that is part of the reason we are in this mess.
 
Way back, long ago in this thread I stated there should be a 'no party system' - just vote for what the candidate says and not because there's a "R" or "D" after their name.

I think you could have a primary system and put all who's running on a ballot. You could chose 1 or possibly 2 and then those with at least X% of the vote go to the final vote in November.

OR, keep the 2ish party system and list the candidates in alphabetical order without the "R" or "D" after their name and see how that shakes out.

I don't think straight party ticket voting should be allowed.
 
Planit said:
Way back, long ago in this thread I stated there should be a 'no party system' - just vote for what the candidate says and not because there's a "R" or "D" after their name.

I think you could have a primary system and put all who's running on a ballot. You could chose 1 or possibly 2 and then those with at least X% of the vote go to the final vote in November.

OR, keep the 2ish party system and list the candidates in alphabetical order without the "R" or "D" after their name and see how that shakes out.

I don't think straight party ticket voting should be allowed.
Click to expand...
I mean Bloomberg is really just running. He isn't exactly a D or an R. He is just picking his team because Trump picked the R's. I mean Trump is not a R, but he just picked that team.

The reason we have a party system is money. To be able to win, you have to have money (see Bloomberg ad spending). The parties provide money.

If we, stay with me here, took money out of politics.....

I think we should fund any candidate who is picked by a "party" or whatever a limit of $XX for local elections, state elections, federal elections, etc. Make it even, make it clear. You have to get creative with that money, but that is all you get for the entire race. You don't get "war chests". You don't get to use your own vast wealth. You use the money provided to you by the government.

The reason our system is broken and getting worse, is because we now have super PACs, we have more dark money than ever in politics, and we just have to keep spending more and more to get worse outcomes. The fact that our congress cannot reach over the aisle to get legislation done speaks volumes about the money in our system. If you vote against the NRA, you won't get money. You vote against the farm lobby, guess what? No money. You vote, X way, you won't get Y dollars.

I would rather us spend that money on, I don't know, programs that help our poor, or lowering taxes, or whatever the government used to actually get accomplished...
 
A couple thoughts:

Heavily regulate (even more than they are now) PACs if they must survive.

Also after a campaign in over, don't let the candidate keep the campaign money. Any extra funds should be forfeited to the government for education or infrastructure construction.
 
Hink said:
I mean Bloomberg is really just running. He isn't exactly a D or an R. He is just picking his team because Trump picked the R's. I mean Trump is not a R, but he just picked that team.

The reason we have a party system is money. To be able to win, you have to have money (see Bloomberg ad spending). The parties provide money.

If we, stay with me here, took money out of politics.....

I think we should fund any candidate who is picked by a "party" or whatever a limit of $XX for local elections, state elections, federal elections, etc. Make it even, make it clear. You have to get creative with that money, but that is all you get for the entire race. You don't get "war chests". You don't get to use your own vast wealth. You use the money provided to you by the government.

The reason our system is broken and getting worse, is because we now have super PACs, we have more dark money than ever in politics, and we just have to keep spending more and more to get worse outcomes. The fact that our congress cannot reach over the aisle to get legislation done speaks volumes about the money in our system. If you vote against the NRA, you won't get money. You vote against the farm lobby, guess what? No money. You vote, X way, you won't get Y dollars.

I would rather us spend that money on, I don't know, programs that help our poor, or lowering taxes, or whatever the government used to actually get accomplished...
Click to expand...

What if we did both... take money and parties out of politics.
 
I think this is the first time in a long time where I truly think my vote in the primary matters. I am still undecided but need to submit my ballot by next week.
 
Planit said:
Way back, long ago in this thread I stated there should be a 'no party system' - just vote for what the candidate says and not because there's a "R" or "D" after their name.

I think you could have a primary system and put all who's running on a ballot. You could chose 1 or possibly 2 and then those with at least X% of the vote go to the final vote in November.

OR, keep the 2ish party system and list the candidates in alphabetical order without the "R" or "D" after their name and see how that shakes out.

I don't think straight party ticket voting should be allowed.
Click to expand...

What you describe is basically a single-day primary and then the general election becomes a runoff. That is not all that different than how other countries function. You could also structure it as a single election with ranked-choice voting, which would allow for instant run-off. That would be a good setup.
 
estromberg said:
It is looking more and more like there will never be a GenX President. The Boomers will pass the torch to Millenials and GenX will sit on the sidelines and watch it happen. Which is just emblematic of GenX.
Click to expand...

Obama was borderline. He isn't really what you would consider a Boomer.
 
I'm setting the over/under for how long it takes Trump to pardon Roger Stone at 31.5 days from the time of his sentencing. Who's taking the under?
 
I'll take under. I'll bet some prickly pear jelly to whatever you've got good up in Michigan.
 
DVD said:
I'll take under. I'll bet some prickly pear jelly to whatever you've got good up in Michigan.
Click to expand...

If it's jelly to jelly, I'll put up a jar of apple jelly or apple butter from a local apple orchard.

Now I really just want to know what prickly pear jelly tastes like! Would you put that on a bagel or toast or what? I never even knew you could eat cactus until a few years ago when I saw that our grocery store had prickly pear leafs (are they leafs? what do you call them?) in the fresh produce area. I bought them a few times and tried them grilled and also diced up with eggs and onions and salsa. They were interesting but not interesting enough to keep me coming back.
 
Prickly pear is an interesting sweet taste. I can't describe it other than to say it doesn't taste like chicken.

The leaves are called nopales or cactus pads and I agree, interesting, but not enough for me to do it again.
 
DVD said:
Prickly pear is an interesting sweet taste. I can't describe it other than to say it doesn't taste like chicken.

The leaves are called nopales or cactus pads and I agree, interesting, but not enough for me to do it again.
Click to expand...
Boy that sounds like a really political position to take. Oh... wait.... okay... nevermind... carry on.
 
Shut it with your I'm not being political enough for this thread. Stop trying to block my win of some sweet sweet apple butter betting on the president's lack of respect for the rule of law and the justice system in general.
 
About 3 weeks ago tRump abolished federal civilian workers unionizing & nobody reported on it because of the reality show news cycle going on that week.
 
Note to self: Don't seat Pete and Amy next to each other at my next soiree.

++
The media have to figure out how to keep trump from sucking all the air out of a room. His outrageousness is designed to get the media's attention, and it works like a charm. Think of all the coverage he got with his "they're not sending their finest" anti-immigrant rant and other bodacious statements. We saw it in '16 and (really) ever since. Of course, we'll see it in '20 as well especially once the Dems settle on a candidate. I don't claim to know how to let that crap boil off into the ether, but they need to figure it out. Or they'll screw us again.

++
I'm probably going to delete the book of faces. I have too many friends that post pro trump shit and my only response is to think "That's Russian GRU/IRA crap for sure" and I can't call them out for it. (I could have posted this in the other thread, but since it is politics that is driving my quitting, I put it here.)
 
Trump’s Efforts to Remove the Disloyal Heightens Unease Across His Administration
www.nytimes.com

Trump’s Efforts to Remove the Disloyal Heightens Unease Across His Administration

As senior officials are shown the door, a new personnel chief orders a search for political appointees as well as career officials deemed insufficiently supportive of the president.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“Trump appears to be launching the biggest assault on the nation’s civil service system since the 1883 Pendleton Act ended the spoils system,”
said Paul C. Light, a New York University professor who has studied presidential personnel.
Click to expand...
 
This is a pretty wonky article in The Atlantic about Trump's power grab inside the Federal government. There's no way the Cheeto thought of this himself: somebody who deeply knows how the Federal government works had to be behind it. Nonetheless, we are getting closer to the authoritarian state with each day.

Impartiality is anathema to Trumpism. That the Trump administration wants to upend a long-standing system for assuring both the reality and appearance of fairness in agency adjudication may be shocking. But it is not surprising. If you consider yourself on block watch for threats to democracy, take your eyes for a moment off the president’s Twitter feed and turn your attention to administrative law. Danger is lurking amid the complexity.
Click to expand...

As I have said before, Republicans don't want to govern: they want to rule.
 
I really tried to watch the Debate last night, but after about 45 minutes it was too difficult. Everyone talking over each other, at least 3 holding their hand up like 5th grade, everyone going over time - just seemed like chaos. I think at least 3 news outlets called it a train wreck.

Why can't we have a normalized questions answer period? Here's the question & you have 3 minutes to state your case, then the next person, & the next …




Then Little Marco tried to be funny with a tweet & got many responses:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-reefer-warning-democratic-debate_n_5e55fb6ec5b62e9dc7d995f7
 
Planit said:
I really tried to watch the Debate last night, but after about 45 minutes it was too difficult. Everyone talking over each other, at least 3 holding their hand up like 5th grade, everyone going over time - just seemed like chaos. I think at least 3 news outlets called it a train wreck.

Why can't we have a normalized questions answer period? Here's the question & you have 3 minutes to state your case, then the next person, & the next …




Then Little Marco tried to be funny with a tweet & got many responses:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-reefer-warning-democratic-debate_n_5e55fb6ec5b62e9dc7d995f7
Click to expand...
I think the debate stage is too big. I think both parties would be wise to make it harder to get up there. Why am I watching Tom Steyer up there?

I also think that debates should allow candidates to debate. The 30 second question and answer concept works for our social media world, but it does nothing to allow candidates to actually explain themselves. Let Pete attack Bernie and let Bernie respond. Let the candidates each have questions. Let them each have responses.

I would rather see a debate on three questions and have it go into depth, than hear two seconds on what Warren has planned for something potentially.
 
Hink said:
I think the debate stage is too big. I think both parties would be wise to make it harder to get up there. Why am I watching Tom Steyer up there?

I also think that debates should allow candidates to debate. The 30 second question and answer concept works for our social media world, but it does nothing to allow candidates to actually explain themselves. Let Pete attack Bernie and let Bernie respond. Let the candidates each have questions. Let them each have responses.

I would rather see a debate on three questions and have it go into depth, than hear two seconds on what Warren has planned for something potentially.
Click to expand...
I watched a little of it... and it made me want to puke. Those on stage can't handle each other in a civil context. How are any of them going to handle Trump who does not understand how to be civil. Several of them are planting people in the audience to get a response out of others (like Bernie) and you know that someone from Trump's campaign is writing down every bit of dirt that is mentioned, so he too can use these against the candidates.

I see zero chance of any of them being able to beat Trump this fall.
 
This morning while waiting to pay for my coffee at a local gas station, there were a couple of people behind me that had the craziest conspiracy theory I have heard in a while. They said that the coronavirus was actually a bio-weapon that was released by China at Trumps request knowing that it would have a greater impact on big cities in the US, allowing him to sweep the electoral college this November.

My first thought was, no.... Trump is not that smart to know to orchestrate something like that.
 
michaelskis said:
This morning while waiting to pay for my coffee at a local gas station, there were a couple of people behind me that had the craziest conspiracy theory I have heard in a while. They said that the coronavirus was actually a bio-weapon that was released by China at Trumps request knowing that it would have a greater impact on big cities in the US, allowing him to sweep the electoral college this November.

My first thought was, no.... Trump is not that smart to know to orchestrate something like that.
Click to expand...


The sheer amount and wild/wacky conspiracy theories makes me wonder how prevalent glue sniffing was in peoples middle school years.
 
Back
Top