- 3,841
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
As an African-American, I would say that each are equally horrible, equally demeaning, and have no place in modern America. It's not really a contest for which is worse.
The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread
- Thread starter Sanji Himura
- 9,494 comments
- 360,277 views
As an African-American, I would say that each are equally horrible, equally demeaning, and have no place in modern America. It's not really a contest for which is worse.
- 13,830
- Adelaide
- Neomone
And to be fair, he doesn't seem to be wrong.
Except that's really not true. Sometimes it is, but the enemy of your enemy can totally be your enemy as well. The reality is that you're supporting the candidate most like Donald Trump who isn't named Donald Trump. Why not just go the whole hog and support Trump?
- 5,051
- Netherlands
You are now claiming that Bloomberg is like Trump and by supporting him, I might as well support Trump?
Please read what you just said out loud!
edit:
Both are bad. I was not making a contest, but one is much worse.
As an asian I detest yellow face, but that does not compare to racial profiling by police.
edit: removed unnessecary rude comment.
Last edited:
- 13,830
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I'm not seeing refutations, just loud complaining that someone dared to claim that Bloomberg was like Trump. That's a very Trumpian response, as I'm sure you're well aware.
We have two rich old white guys, both of who seem pretty authoritarian from their past political history, who love getting on Twitter and causing drama, who have at best dubious pasts with regards to the treatment of women, who seem to prefer spending their time attacking opponents to detailing their platform or solutions, and who have flip-flopped between both major political parties and so presumably have no particularly strong ties to either one beyond what they think will get them into office.
How am I doing so far? There are ways in which they're not the same, obviously, what with them not being the same person and all. But there are notably strong similarities. I think you'll need a little more than calling me daft to rebut the idea that Bloomberg is the most Trumpian non-Trump candidate.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I think I clearly did react accordingly to your claim that Bloomberg is racist. You however moved through the extreme suggestion that supporting Bloomberg is like supporting Trump. They have similarities, but definately are objectively the same. Americans seem to do the same thing with Boris Johnson. Which is also a false to state that Boris and trump are the same.
I edited out the daft comment 21 minutes ago. It was rude and uncalled for.I dont understand how it is in your post from 6 minutes?
edit 2: I sincerely apologise for the comment of you being "daft".
edit: to re-iterate. Yes Bloomberg is racist, but unlike Trump can see the errors of his ways. If you keep ignoring the fact that Trump never admits or apologises to anything, then its kind of useless to go on. There are varying levels of being racist, even the canadian president is racist. I also can be racist. That is not the reason I dislike Trump however, which you seem to overlook.
Last edited:
Keef
Premium
- 24,907
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
@PocketZeven @McLaren All I really know about Bloomberg is that his stop and frisk policy as NYC mayor was extremely controversial and I'm not so sure it ever had support from moderate democrats in NYC, even those who voted him in. But back then I didn't really follow NYC politics other than knowing they were generally crooked. Regardless, I don't agree with the "Democrats get to say 'racist' things". Pretty much all my similarly aged friends, regardless of their politics, but especially the progressive ones, are pretty appalled by that policy. Most of the older folks who raised me, however, might know it's wrong today but brush it off because it wasn't as bad as the policies when they were growing up. They've all lived most of their lives in white suburbs so it's pretty meh to them. They have plenty of objective observations that support the idea that crime is where the black people are but they don't ask "why" about any of it.
Danoff, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Midwestern Republicans are the kind of people who would actually support stop and frisk. If Bloomberg were a Republican he would probably get a lot of support for something like that. I don't know anybody moderate or progressive who has ever given him a pass on that policy. What you wrote reads backwards to me.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Keef
Premium
- 24,907
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I don't necessarily agree with that but my opinion of Trump is basically a wannabe dictator. That said, I do think Bloomberg is completely out of touch with the next generation of Democrats - as I said previously (I forget which thread), that Bloomberg has the audacity to run in the current economic and political climate is ridiculous to me. Not only does he stand opposed to every single progressive in the country, and most young people, especially college-aged kids, but he's also banking on the idea that most Democrats will simply ignore the fact that Bloomberg has zero incentive to challenge the economic and political elite, because he is the economic and political elite. While moderate candidates like Pete and Amy are happy to accept billionaire money for their campaigns, Bloomberg is so out of touch that he is actually his own billionaire donor. That's just monstrously offensive to even slightly progressive voters. I don't understand what the purpose of his campaign is. The only logical reason is that he exists specifically to maintain the current economic and political elite status quo. He's the complete opposite of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren and is basically a Republican as far as I can tell. I'm just hoping the Democrats don't shoot themselves in the foot again but I have a feeling they will because the party itself has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because of course most of the party leaders are among the elite. There aren't many of them, but their wealth and influence is more powerful than what millions and millions of regular people could possibly affect.
- 13,830
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I asked why not support Trump if you're going to support Bloomberg, who is the most Trumpian non-Trump candidate. Like seriously, drop the aggrieved indignation that someone would suggest it for a moment, take into account all the ways in which Bloomberg is very much like Trump, and spell out why Bloomberg is better.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" isn't it, as I pointed out. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is just your enemy.
What is it about him that makes him both better than Trump and better than all the other Democratic candidates? Why do you want that middle ground that is less Trumpy than Trump, but more Trumpy than every other Democrat when you've been pretty profoundly anti-Trump for the last four years?
Because I saw your post, hit reply, and took my time composing a reply that was appropriate. Then left it for a little while and re-read it before posting.
He was a Republican when he was voted into Mayor for NYC. I'm not sure whether the fact that he's switched parties to further his political aims is a good thing or bad thing. It sure seems like he'll just follow whoever necessary to get into power, but then again maybe America could do worse than have someone at the helm with a foot in both camps at the moment.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Here is what the Democrats are up against.
This is how a number of Republicans feel about Trump. Trump's base really love him. Most of the Trump supporters I know really love him. It is almost an unconditional love. Yeah, sure he is an idiot sometimes, but he means well, loves this country and he is always trying to do what is best for the US. And he is doing a great job.
I don't know of any Democrat candidate that has this kind of love from their supporters. Bernie has his bros (comrades), Yang had his gang, but is that it?
This is how a number of Republicans feel about Trump. Trump's base really love him. Most of the Trump supporters I know really love him. It is almost an unconditional love. Yeah, sure he is an idiot sometimes, but he means well, loves this country and he is always trying to do what is best for the US. And he is doing a great job.
I don't know of any Democrat candidate that has this kind of love from their supporters. Bernie has his bros (comrades), Yang had his gang, but is that it?
McLaren
Premium
- 45,186
- Texas
I’d argue after Bernie deciding to run again, his base is just as passionate about him as Trump’s. They’re a bit split though; some want Bernie no matter what and won’t vote if they feel the DNC screws him, some are “Vote Blue” no matter what if he doesn’t get the nomination. The rest are kind of in middle grounds.
- 13,830
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Not really. Those types of supporters on either side won't be swayed no matter what. There was no chance of those people ever being convinced to vote for anyone other than Trump.
What the Democrats are up against are the people who feel that Trump has done Ok, maybe, but they're not sure that they want another term of him. Those are the people that they need to convince. Likewise, the Republicans aren't fighting for the votes of hardcore Bernie-ists, they're trying to convince moderate Democrats that Trump has done pretty good and is a better choice than a Democrat without Presidential experience.
The people on the extremes aren't the ones being fought over, because they're decided already. The front lines are where there are people who are legitimately undecided.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
In a macroscopic sense, this is undeniably true. The nation is at peace, getting out of foreign entanglements in Afghanistan, etc., and is prosperous - much more so than any other nations by far. If you want freedom and opportunity, this is the place. But at the microscopic level, he is in bad odor with the legacy press, Social Justice Warriors, climate worriers, and debt paying libertarians, no doubt. Bottom line, how much importance is to be placed on peace and prosperity versus virtue signaling?
Danoff
Premium
- 33,576
- Mile High City
No, it's not undeniable.
This is a huge problem. 2009 was a "crisis". 2019 is business as usual now.
Edit:
To be perhaps clearer here.... you don't get to say that the nation is "prosperous" is macroscopic, and then the unsustainable debt which causes temporary "prosperity" is microscopic.
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I think we have a different interpertation of "trumpian". I am not a "fan"of Bloomberg, but I think he has the best chance to beat Trump. He is better, because he is a centrist and is not Joe Biden. It is quite 2 dimensional to suggest that because he is a billionaire, switched parties and has had history with racist policies they are somehow one and the same (hell they are both New Yorkers). I have named the main differences but you keep focusing on the simalarities.
To be clear my opinion would perhaps be different if there was a moderate republican challenging Trump.
Sorry again for the "daft" comment.
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
No, it's not undeniable.
This is a huge problem. 2009 was a "crisis". 2019 is business as usual now.
Edit:
To be perhaps clearer here.... you don't get to say that the nation is "prosperous" is macroscopic, and then the unsustainable debt which causes temporary "prosperity" is microscopic.
I clearly remember how "prosperous" many people felt ca. 2006/2007. The economy was humming along, interest rates were low, the banks were doing great, people's home prices were awesome ...
Keef
Premium
- 24,907
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I note that @Dotini referred to "the nation" as being prosperous.
What is "the nation"? Because I know a lot of people in the Midwest, including those working in Trump's favorite mining industries, that are definitely not prosperous. I mean, Amazon and Tesla are making money hand over fist, sure, but I don't think they are "the nation". As far as I can tell, the only people who are prospering right now are those with large corporate investments. That's a small minority of "the nation". Most of "the nation" doesn't even check their 401k because, company match or not, it isn't very prosperous.
And then as Danoff and Biggles suggest, this corporate prosperity is eerily similar to what we experienced before 2008. The Big Short even suggested that Wall Street started doing the exact same scheme shortly afterwards, with different fancy names.
But bubble or no bubble, we're better off than China. They're building entire cities and leaving them empty with...somebody's money. Not sure whose.
Last edited:
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
Keef
Premium
- 24,907
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I'd ask you to find evidence of that but I could refute every one of those claims with a literal quote from the man's twitter illustrating his narcissism. He means well for himself, but not for anybody else. I don't know how that isn't obvious unless you simply haven't read any of the words that he's written or said.
The US has been prosperous compared to the rest of the world since we discovered the military-industrial complex of Lend-Lease during WW2.
Which is kind of funny because the Lend-Lease period, WW2 and the two+ decades after that were some of the most economically dominant time for the US at large, and also the most prosperous times for the middle class. Hell, my dad bought his first house at 20 years old straight out of a machinist apprenticeship.
Wall of text incoming...
In terms of income tax, what defined this period was a large number of tax brackets which increased gradually in both income amount and percentage, all the way up to 79% and $5,000,000 ($93,000,000 adjusted) in 1936...talk about a logarithmic scale! What this meant is that the more money a person made, the more difficult it became to make more money, which is generally the way we view achievement in the US. The more difficult the series a race driver competes in, the more difficult it is to become the champion, etc. Anyways, by 1945 the wartime rates had been in effect for years, and the top rate was 94% at $200,000 ($2,887,000). That's still a very logarithmic scale, because the top 5% of family incomes began at about $75,000 in the mid-1940s according to these charts. That wartime tax system remained similar, hovering around 90% and $200,000 until 1964 when the top rate was lowered to a whopping 77%.
But this raises some interesting issues, because as the income brackets did not change, inflation did, which means that the brackets effectively contracted to effect lower incomes more heavily than when these brackets were first implemented. In 1964, $200,000 was only worth $1,663,000, not much over half its value from 20 years prior. On the surface you'd think "well that means rich people are paying more tax" but that's not how it works. The logarithmic aspect of the tax brackets has been diminished - not only did the brackets kick in at lower incomes, but there is nothing left higher up to kick in at all, and the currency is worth less so incomes have gotten higher relative to the brackets. This is where the unfairness of the non-logarithmic scale begins to kick in, because at some point way up in the income scale, there is a brake-even point where gathering wealth becomes progressively easier rather than harder.
Speaking of bracket contraction, in 1965 not only did the top rate drop again to 70%, contracting all the brackets again, but the bracket income dropped from $200,000 to $100,000! That's $823,000 now...once a person reaches $823,000 of income in 1965, taxes never go up again. You can see a trend forming here, effectively increasing taxes for lower income earners and decreasing taxes for only the very top income earners, say the .1% in 1965. But the top rate was still 70%, double today's, and it lasted until 1981. I previously mentioned inflation, and suggested that income brackets should not only be logarithmic but should continually increase to match inflation...well, they did just that from 1976 to 1981. Jimmy Carter, you sensible son of a bitch. Is he still alive?
Anyways, we all know who got elected in 1981, what the nickname was for his brand of economic policy, and that the top tax bracket took a massive dump from 70% to 50% while also lowering income levels to less than half. In 1981, under Carter's tax policy, a top earner paid 70% above $107,700 ($320,700). In 1982, under Reagan, a top income earner paid 50% above $42,800 ($117,000). All the brackets contracted of course, and ultimately this created a massive tax for low-income earners. But that was just politics - while a tax cut for low income earners is what got Reagan elected, what those filthy boomers didn't realize is that the logarithmic nature of a marginal system was decimated. After a person reached $42,800 ($117,000) (we're talking regular ass people with good jobs, like network engineers, senior nurses, 3rd-year airline pilots who can barely grow a mustache, etc) their taxes never go up again. The break-even point now is reduced so low that folks who make several hundred thousand a year (which wasn't many in 1982, admittedly) are now able to let their money make money that they don't even have to work for. It very quickly gets easier to make money rather than harder. After that, the rest is history. Reaganomics cemented cronyism in the US. It was the oligarch that broke the camel's back. The people have not been able to control their country since then.
All those charts of real wages, real income, income and wealth disparity, income classes, etc, all of those charts show the exact same thing - they all illustrate the destruction of the working class and the virtually unlimited, disproportionate growth of the economic elite, and it those trends follow tax policy to a tee. Since then we've seen corporate takeover after corporate takeover, companies being eaten alive by corporate monsters, everything in the country being concentrated under just a few corporate umbrellas, all of which have less reason to actually compete with one another.
Last edited:
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
Smoke & mirrors.
The US economy has been on a steady, upward trajectory since the depths of the 2008 financial crisis. Trump promised growth rates of 4% plus. That has not happened, instead GDP is continuing to grow at more or less the same rates as during the Obama years. Trump introduced a big tax cut in an attempt to boost growth to the levels he promised, but it failed to raise the annual growth rate above 3% & it has resulted in a ballooning national debt - unprecedented in a time of economic expansion.
US GDP GROWTH RATE OVER 25 YEARS:
US NATIONAL DEBT TO GDP OVER 25 YEARS:
There has been a negligible increase in manufacturing jobs, because the kind of manufacturing Trump touts - coal, steel, heavy industry - is of less & less importance to the US economy & the disruption created by Trump's trade war has hurt US manufacturing more than it has helped it.
Trump has no understanding of macro economics. He is a reality TV star & a businessman with a really checkered history in real estate. In office he has surrounded himself with "yes-men" who are more concerned with sucking up to him than exercising real judgement. He removes from his administration anyone who disagrees with him, or even offers a counter argument. His policies are designed for what he perceives as his own political benefits.
Last edited:
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
I didn't.
You posted a clip of people professing how they "love" Trump. Gullible people have "loved' many bad, authoritarian leaders. This is nothing new.
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
