Democratic Primary Push for White House

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Buffalo Bob

He said white conservatives won't vote for a gay may, that is a rip in anyone's book but yours. You have selective reading comprehension.

Are you saying white conservatives would vote for a gay guy? I certainly dont think they would. Maybe a small percent like 2% would but if the question is "would conservative males vote for a gay guy?" ... the broad brush says "hell no" and itd be 98% correct.

I dont like the broad brush either, but here, for this limited question .. Im really comfortable with it.

I honestly think a lot of people in both parties would openly or quietly have problems voting for a gay guy. Or a woman for that matter. Or a socialist.

I think Dems need to play it safe - Biden or Bloomberg.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Are you saying white conservatives would vote for a gay guy? I certainly dont think they would. Maybe a small percent like 2% would but if the question is "would conservative males vote for a gay guy?" ... the broad brush says "hell no" and itd be 98% correct.



I dont like the broad brush either, but here, for this limited question .. Im really comfortable with it.



I honestly think a lot of people in both parties would openly or quietly have problems voting for a gay guy. Or a woman for that matter. Or a socialist.



I think Dems need to play it safe - Biden or Bloomberg.

I think in general evangelical conservatives would not vote for a gay president, but fiscal conservatives would.

Of course if a candidate is at the same time putting religion down, and supporting economic socialist policies, then both sets of conservatives would vote against that candidate regardless of sexual orientation.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

My current theory on Bloomberg is that he is the neverTrumper conservatives insurance policy.

I think he has held out from debates so he doesn't get labeled a liberal democrat, then he will shift to an independent campaign with the sole purpose of drawing off enough support from Trump to prevent his re-election. If he were campaigning as an independent or republican he wouldnt have the media gawking over his potential, but by playing close to the democratic sandbox the media keeps his name alive.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

My current theory on Bloomberg is that he is the neverTrumper conservatives insurance policy.

I think he has held out from debates so he doesn't get labeled a liberal democrat, then he will shift to an independent campaign with the sole purpose of drawing off enough support from Trump to prevent his re-election. If he were campaigning as an independent or republican he wouldnt have the media gawking over his potential, but by playing close to the democratic sandbox the media keeps his name alive.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

He is the trump alternative but still a rich white guy who is a smart business man who ran NYC .He can work with everyone.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Are you saying white conservatives would vote for a gay guy? I certainly dont think they would. Maybe a small percent like 2% would but if the question is "would conservative males vote for a gay guy?" ... the broad brush says "hell no" and itd be 98% correct.

I dont like the broad brush either, but here, for this limited question .. Im really comfortable with it.

I honestly think a lot of people in both parties would openly or quietly have problems voting for a gay guy. Or a woman for that matter. Or a socialist.

I think Dems need to play it safe - Biden or Bloomberg.

IMO, Biden is done.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I also have a hard-on for facts as well as Democrats Tulsi Gabbard and Kyrsten Sinema.

You need to look at Klobuchar...she’s a decent candidate.

Here’s my Democratic trash candidate rankings at this time:

1. Warren - lying, pandering, trash who says the dumbest shit like I want a tranny to approve my sec of education. Her lies are some of all time favorites.

2. Bernie - past communist trash, who now masquerades as a socialist. He puts Democratic in front to legitimize an obvious stigma of past national socialist state failures. He’s in favor of the green new deal which is part Marxist and full socialist effort to destroy the free market and make the novel 1984 come to life. He’s not behind any significant legislation as his time as leftist nut case of Congress. What I like about Bernie is he is consistent in ideas except for his bullshit “woke” costume he has to wear thru the primary...it’s laughable to watch.

3. Mayor Pete - he was good at first until he started spewing his bullshit anti religious nonsense. He doesn’t have any experience or idea about foreign policy. I’m loving that lefties are calling him rat face and The Bernie bros hate have legitimized him as a viable candidate.

So I love me some Bernie I am a Marxist because I believe the vast majority of wealth and social inequality stems from a biased system so I might as well own it. Call me what you want. At this time I don't think he beats Trump. I like Pete I think he is a moderate and if he was straight we might confuse him with John Kasich. I do question whether America is ready for a gay man to be leader of the "free world". I know Cred said fiscal conservatives won't have a problem but I know few fiscal conservatives that don't also have conservative social views as well.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Andrew Yang just dropped out today. Kind of sad thought he had some interesting ideas.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

So I love me some Bernie I am a Marxist because I believe the vast majority of wealth and social inequality stems from a biased system so I might as well own it. Call me what you want. At this time I don't think he beats Trump. I like Pete I think he is a moderate and if he was straight we might confuse him with John Kasich. I do question whether America is ready for a gay man to be leader of the "free world". I know Cred said fiscal conservatives won't have a problem but I know few fiscal conservatives that don't also have conservative social views as well.

I have an honest to god question, would you be calling yourself a Marxist if Hillary would have won the election or is this simply because Trump is President? Really an honest question...because a lot of these sudden swing of people minds just occurred right after Obama left office. So you were a Marxist before when Obama was president? You rallied against his free market principals and the democratic elected practice to put him there as "unjust"?

Did you point to Venezuela as a shimmering light of hope when they were the most robust economy in South America like Bernie did during the Obama presidency and say "this is the way?"

All this bleakness I read about is funny to me because it doesn't cant change the facts that this economy is most the equitable in the history of the country, foreign investment is extremely strong, local and state economies are FLUSH with cash, capitol investment is flowing unlike any time in history, entrepreneurship ability has never been greater, the ability to take risks in startups have never been easier, innovation in this free market is record pace, college grads are coming out making real money, etc.

So when I hear doom and gloom I look at the numbers and simply don't get it...Im trying to pinpoint why...Trump?

[CRedskinsRule]

Pure unfettered capitalism is bad. That is fairly obvious because the wealth collection leads to inherent inequalities like BaltimoreSkins said.

BUT even unfettered capitalism is far superior to any form of economic structure predicated on socialism first. And there is a simple reason. Socialism, and Marxism by extension, take away the natural incentive that human beings need to excel. In socialism, one gains no advantage to being better than others, in fact quite often the reverse is true - if you are more motivated to earn a higher wage, the benefits of your effort is taken from you and passed on to those who were less motivated. And that kills human spirit and drive quicker than unfettered capitalism's poverty.

Unfettered capitalism's poverty puts human beings in terrible places, and in a Darwinian way sifts the wheat from the chaff. Some people who don't know where their next meal will come from, but have hope of escape will use that hope and grow. Most will not.

So the real question is not whether socialism or capitalism is bad or good, but how do you balance the value of human life (which pure socialism values with equality) with the mechanism of hope and incentive that pure capitalism creates through wealth diversity and distribution.

Personally, and I know it is an unattainable goal because government bureaucracy will never give up it's power, but I think all specific aid programs should be converted to one bureau, and that every person over 18 should be given up to 22K a year. If you earn 22001 you get 0 from aid. if you earn 18000 you get 4K. I realize that this creates a disincentive but 22k is purely sustaining a life. No frills. So the incentive to work and earn more exists without having anyone suffer pure abject capitalistism's poverty. Along with that would I would support a cataclysmic insurance system with strong checks.

The 22K is a relatively arbitrary number that is more for example. I would think that the actual number should be a calculated number based on the cost of 1 person living in an average cost of living, with an actuarial table of insurance and rent and food expenses.

The key point is that government bureacracy is reduced to near zero. IRS collects, one agency calculates the yearly number, and IRS disburses monthly checks based on the previous year's tax returns. From there individuals rise and fall on their ability. If someone takes that monthly check and spends it poorly then they face the consequences of their choices. If someone manages to spend less than the monthly check and saves, then they reap the benefits of their choices.

anyway. that's my thought for the day

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Are you saying white conservatives would vote for a gay guy? I certainly dont think they would. Maybe a small percent like 2% would but if the question is "would conservative males vote for a gay guy?" ... the broad brush says "hell no" and itd be 98% correct.

I am a white conservative male and I would vote for a gay man, as long as he wasn't the over the top flamboyant type. Something about a dude acting like Liberace 24-7 rubs me the wrong way. The only thing that bugs me about Pete is he seems to be trying too hard to get more votes from the black community.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Personally, and I know it is an unattainable goal because government bureaucracy will never give up it's power, but I think all specific aid programs should be converted to one bureau, and that every person over 18 should be given up to 22K a year. If you earn 22001 you get 0 from aid. if you earn 18000 you get 4K. I realize that this creates a disincentive but 22k is purely sustaining a life. No frills.

anyway. that's my thought for the day

Interesting thought of the day.

I personally dont like the idea of free money. I live in an apartment/town house neighborhood with section 8 families, and I love the kids, theyre friends with my daughter, i made like 6 grilled cheese sandwiches for them this weekend and they hang in my house a lot.

But their mom and dad dont work. Doesnt appear they try to work. Doesdnt appear they try to even get their kids to school. I went to law school, work kinda hard, wake up early every day I answer the bell .. yet we live in identical townhouses. I am living below what i could but still.

They got into a big car accident, took a vacation to Florida, bought a new used car and within a month it doesnt run anymore, tag expired and it sits there in the parking lot. You give my section 8 neighbors 22k and they are spending it in 1 month and then right back to needing 100% assistance.

Flip side - my ex cant get on section 8 bc MD stop taking names, has applied to a billion jobs and cant get hired and im paying like 2k plus a month for her. She would homeless ... she tries her ass off, she wants to work, shes a good person and somehow since she doesnt know the system she gets zero assistance but my neighbors get a townhouse ...

Id vote Kasich for sure.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Interesting thought of the day.



I personally dont like the idea of free money. I live in an apartment/town house neighborhood with section 8 families, and I love the kids, theyre friends with my daughter, i made like 6 grilled cheese sandwiches for them this weekend and they hang in my house a lot.



But their mom and dad dont work. Doesnt appear they try to work. Doesdnt appear they try to even get their kids to school. I went to law school, work kinda hard, wake up early every day I answer the bell .. yet we live in identical townhouses. I am living below what i could but still.



They got into a big car accident, took a vacation to Florida, bought a new used car and within a month it doesnt run anymore, tag expired and it sits there in the parking lot. You give my section 8 neighbors 22k and they are spending it in 1 month and then right back to needing 100% assistance.



Flip side - my ex cant get on section 8 bc MD stop taking names, has applied to a billion jobs and cant get hired and im paying like 2k plus a month for her. She would homeless ... she tries her ass off, she wants to work, shes a good person and somehow since she doesnt know the system she gets zero assistance but my neighbors get a townhouse ...



Id vote Kasich for sure.

The only thing i would say is in my system, if someone blows the 22k there is no additional assistance. At first of course the shock would be overwhelming but any additional charity would be that charity from private citizens. On the other side if three 20 year olds got a small bedroom and minimized other expenses, they could invest much of their living capital to finance a small car shop in a way not possible now.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

Whats more shocking, Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden performance so far?

I gotta role with Pocahontas

[SunnySide]

“She's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father...’”

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I have an honest to god question, would you be calling yourself a Marxist if Hillary would have won the election or is this simply because Trump is President? Really an honest question...because a lot of these sudden swing of people minds just occurred right after Obama left office. So you were a Marxist before when Obama was president? You rallied against his free market principals and the democratic elected practice to put him there as "unjust"?

Did you point to Venezuela as a shimmering light of hope when they were the most robust economy in South America like Bernie did during the Obama presidency and say "this is the way?"

All this bleakness I read about is funny to me because it doesn't cant change the facts that this economy is most the equitable in the history of the country, foreign investment is extremely strong, local and state economies are FLUSH with cash, capitol investment is flowing unlike any time in history, entrepreneurship ability has never been greater, the ability to take risks in startups have never been easier, innovation in this free market is record pace, college grads are coming out making real money, etc.

So when I hear doom and gloom I look at the numbers and simply don't get it...Im trying to pinpoint why...Trump?

I am not sure when I began to consider myself a Marxist, I have always thought that our societal and economic system was biased but I didn't start using the label until people started labeling me as such then I said sure why not.

In terms of most equitable economy ever? Maybe. I do know there is great stress put on the middle class to keep the economy a float. At the same time we are not seeing the influx of services in marginalized communities and that is an indictment on local and state jurisdictions which are a huge part of the problem. Take Baltimore they have invested huge amounts int eh water front neighborhoods which are mostly upper middle class while not developing fully services in more marginalized communities food deserts, recreational opportunities are limited, the powers that be for the City even stopped accepting SNAP at the farmers markets. I am not saying it has to be an even distribution, I am not a communist after all, but I do see how we can improve the quality of life of communities that need it and choose not to.

In terms of Venezuela that is just crazy talk. I don't follow Bernie blindly and he does say things that are extreme. The only thing we should be pointing at Venezuela and saying we should want to incorporate in our society is the glorious amounts of fine tanned female asses.