The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Danoff]

Fair enough. When it comes to adults, I have no issues with turn about as fair game. He is using his wealth to try and buy an election, and no doubt (for me) his wealth is where he gains most of this world view, particularly his view of the working class, and probably his views that informed his decision to create and pass "stop and frisk". As Mustafur says, its gotta is class that is his issue. Whether he is the rule, or the exception, his wealth has skewed his world views and thus I find it to be the issue. And no, no I dont think he is the exception. Even the "good wealth guys" like Musk and Buffet are quite removed and far from relating with the average person, and its directly a result of their wealth.
Maybe saying that is class warfare, but that doesnt make it false. The brain has an amazing way to make one forget about hardships and pains. Even someone who has come from a poor place and built their wealth will quickly forget what living pay check to pay check is like when they can afford anything the want at a whim and can pay a person or two to make it happen for them.
That's not to say they dont have problems or troubles or life is easier for them. They just lose their connection with the realities of the average person.

You're trying to excuse stereotyping. I could rewrite your post in terms of race or gender, and you'd be hard pressed to stick by it. This is a strong movement today socially, to dehumanize the rich. It's been present for centuries, but it's appreciating an upswing in recent years.

You need to forget about the notion of an "average person". It's very appealing to say that there is such a thing, an that you belong to this group of people, but this again is class warfare. You're trying to democratize life experience such that the experiences of most people are more important than the experiences of the minority. As with all minorities, this is a dangerous practice that intentionally reduces empathy and enables you to advocate for wrongdoing without triggering your conscience.

There is no "average person". You might share some experiences with others based on similar personal wealths, but that does not mean that you're "like them". You can share similar experiences with people of all walks of life, including billionaires. In fact, you might be surprised just how similar their experiences can be to your own. Likewise, as with billionaries, you might be shocked how dissimilar life experiences can be across people of identical wealth and income levels.

People can absolutely forget their past struggles. But people can also remember. It depends on the particular personality.

 

[Dotini]

There are two corrupt, rich oligarchs. Each justifies his actions as necessary to achieve the desired ends. Each has millions of supporters. Almost the entire nation including academia and elite media eagerly embrace the contest.

Either way, the ends justify the means and might makes right.

 

[Rallywagon]

You're trying to excuse stereotyping. I could rewrite your post in terms of race or gender, and you'd be hard pressed to stick by it. This is a strong movement today socially, to dehumanize the rich. It's been present for centuries, but it's appreciating an upswing in recent years.

You need to forget about the notion of an "average person". It's very appealing to say that there is such a thing, an that you belong to this group of people, but this again is class warfare. You're trying to democratize life experience such that the experiences of most people are more important than the experiences of the minority. As with all minorities, this is a dangerous practice that intentionally reduces empathy and enables you to advocate for wrongdoing without triggering your conscience.

There is no "average person". You might share some experiences with others based on similar personal wealths, but that does not mean that you're "like them". You can share similar experiences with people of all walks of life, including billionaires. In fact, you might be surprised just how similar their experiences can be to your own. Likewise, as with billionaries, you might be shocked how dissimilar life experiences can be across people of identical wealth and income levels.

People can absolutely forget their past struggles. But people can also remember. It depends on the particular personality.

Except that there is a place to say "average person" when we are speaking economically. As average means "a number that typifies a set of numbers of which it is a function" which when speaking of annual income earns, the average american is at 72k annually +-. And I do stand by my claim that someone sitting with billions in wealth is so far removed from that average person I just definded that they are disconnected from the struggle of the average earner.
Also, while not really equitable, as people really would have trouble changing their skin tones, I dont think it wrong to say, as a white male, I dont understand the life experience of a black women, or mexican male. I don't subscribe to the idea of "white privilege" but that doesn't mean I understand their struggles. But, again, it's hard to use that as an example since I cant be white, then be black or vis versa.

There are two corrupt, rich oligarchs. Each justifies his actions as necessary to achieve the desired ends. Each has millions of supporters. Almost the entire nation including academia and elite media eagerly embrace the contest.

Either way, the ends justify the means and might makes right.

You need to get out of the Seattle smoke cloud fella. Your propensity for blowing smoke and hot air with all the elegance and poetry of an 1800s philosopher is bar none the best on GTP. It also tends to be about the most vapid. There is currently only one oligarch "contender". And he's in the oval office (well, actually, probably a golf cart). The other oligarch, while trying to buy his way up the chain, is not yet a contender, and given the debate from the other night, not likely to be.

 

[baldgye]

The other oligarch...

Didn’t he work himself up (as much as anyone realistically can do anything by themselves) to becoming as wealthy as he is from a very modest upbringing?

 

[Exorcet]

Except that there is a place to say "average person" when we are speaking economically. As average means "a number that typifies a set of numbers of which it is a function" which when speaking of annual income earns, the average american is at 72k annually +-. And I do stand by my claim that someone sitting with billions in wealth is so far removed from that average person I just definded that they are disconnected from the struggle of the average earner.

You can have an average, but the average doesn't necessarily represent a real thing. The average of 10 and 0 is 5, but 5 is pretty far removed from both 10 and 0. The concept of the average person necessarily deals with a much larger and more diverse sample size than two opposite extremes but there is still quite a lot of room for variation. Dividing the population into "billionaire" and "average" doesn't seem particularly accurate or useful to me. I'd think pretty much everyone on GTP would fall into the average person category, yet there is no amount of potential disagreement to be found here. The same goes for me outside of the internet. I don't know any billionaires personally but I see pretty big differences in opinion from the people I do know. In the grand scheme of things I'd say wealth is pretty minor factor in determining similarity between people. I'm genuinely concerned at the idea that electing a billionaire to power is bad just because they have money.

Also, while not really equitable, as people really would have trouble changing their skin tones, I dont think it wrong to say, as a white male, I dont understand the life experience of a black women, or mexican male. I don't subscribe to the idea of "white privilege" but that doesn't mean I understand their struggles. But, again, it's hard to use that as an example since I cant be white, then be black or vis versa.

Can you understand any given white male?

 

[Danoff]

Except that there is a place to say "average person" when we are speaking economically. As average means "a number that typifies a set of numbers of which it is a function" which when speaking of annual income earns, the average american is at 72k annually +-. And I do stand by my claim that someone sitting with billions in wealth is so far removed from that average person I just definded that they are disconnected from the struggle of the average earner.
Also, while not really equitable, as people really would have trouble changing their skin tones, I dont think it wrong to say, as a white male, I dont understand the life experience of a black women, or mexican male. I don't subscribe to the idea of "white privilege" but that doesn't mean I understand their struggles. But, again, it's hard to use that as an example since I cant be white, then be black or vis versa.

You defeated your own argument there.

Yes, you can share experiences. And you can lack shared experiences. This is true of all people along lots of different lines. You seem to think that experiences based on skin color are significant. I'd guess the same was for gender. And the same being for income? Or wealth? Or how about age?

So if you have the same age as someone, and the same gender, but a different skin color and wealth... are you like this person or not? If you have the same income and skin color, but don't have the same wealth, age, or gender, are you like this person or not?

You share something with almost everyone, and your particular experiences are unique. Instead of looking for ways to marginalize a minority in one particular aspect (wealth in this particular case), look for ways to humanize and find commonality. Or perhaps even more important, look to more meaningful differences. Like whether someone is corrupt, immoral, pompous, clueless, or a "good" person.

 

[Dennisch]

Mike Trump, I mean Donald Bloomberg already threw half a billion dollar, half a ****ing billion dollars towards his campaign.

Moronic.

 

[Dotini]

Mike Trump, I mean Donald Bloomberg already threw half a billion dollar, half a ****ing billion dollars towards his campaign.

Moronic.

Mini-Mike, Mr Moneybags, Architect of Stop and Frisk, is the only man standing between us and the Armageddon of a 2nd Trump administration. His genius, his virtue, and most of all his money is of paramount importance at this pivotal moment in history. Our Redeemer and Savior has come!! Bow, bless and receive him into your hearts and onto your ballots.

 

[Dennisch]

You'll get a less orange Trump if he becomes president.

 

[Liquid]

Mike Trump, I mean Donald Bloomberg already threw half a billion dollar, half a ****ing billion dollars towards his campaign.

Moronic.

As was once noted;

Why spend millions of dollars for a job that only pays $400,000/year?

To steal, siphon and embezzle even more back.

 

[PocketZeven]

So... @PocketZeven.... remember that talk about me not wanting some disconnected billionaire running the country.
You sure if you were American this is the guy you would be supporting? Does he really seem in touch with the average american to you?
More and more as the election cycle progresses he is proving himself to he as pompous, pampered and clueless as I expect any multi billionaire to be.

Did you even really read my initial post? Being in touch was not one of the reasons.

edit: In Bloomberg's case the media is trying their best to portray him as a democratic Trump. It seems to me they are very succesfull.

 

[Imari]

As was once noted;

Why spend millions of dollars for a job that only pays $400,000/year?

To steal, siphon and embezzle even more back.

You can't even assume that his goals are altruistic. This is a guy who is (unlike Trump) a fairly successful businessman. That means he knows what return on investment means. Given the way that lobbying and donations work in American politics, it seems likely that he could get as much or more done with the same money simply by letting someone else win the Presidency and spending the money to influence them and the rest of the party. Hell, any other Democrat who wins the Presidency is likely to do 80+% the same stuff that Bloomberg would do just because they're on the same party platform. Why would he bother unless there's something valuable enough that he doesn't think he could convince anyone else to do for him?

Trump has demonstrated that the Presidency can be lucrative and that being President means that laws don't apply as long as you have sufficient party support. Bloomberg has the real potential to be a Trump that isn't a moron who can't shut his mouth to save himself. Frankly, Trump's inability to keep from bragging about his crimes is one of his best qualities. If he didn't have that he'd be much scarier.

In Bloomberg's case the media is trying their best to portray him as a democratic Trump. It seems to me they are very succesfull.

Or very accurate. But hey, anything as long as it gets Trump out, right? It'd be impossible for anyone to be worse than Trump, right? Right?

 

[PocketZeven]

Or very accurate. But hey, anything as long as it gets Trump out, right? It'd be impossible for anyone to be worse than Trump, right? Right?

No it isnt accurate at all. There are undeniable similarities. Everybody seems to focus on his flaws and not his achievments. Exactly what the MSM did with Trump. My fear is Buttigieg or Warren getting the nomination and Trump ending up being re-elected. In my opinion only Bernie or Bloomberg would be able to beat him.

 

[Joey D]

As was once noted;

Why spend millions of dollars for a job that only pays $400,000/year?

To steal, siphon and embezzle even more back.

I'm not sure it's even that complex. I think most people who become president want to do so because they want to show how important they are. Seriously, it seems like the worst people our country has to offer end up running for president. Genuinely good people probably don't want to be president, which is presumably why someone like Bill Gates (who could easily buy the office) wants nothing to do with it.

 

[Dennisch]

I'm not sure it's even that complex. I think most people who become president want to do so because they want to show how important they are. Seriously, it seems like the worst people our country has to offer end up running for president. Genuinely good people probably don't want to be president, which is presumably why someone like Bill Gates (who could easily buy the office) wants nothing to do with it.

Because if you treat them as wannabe superstars, they will behave as such.

Take away all the showboating and massive rallies and start treating them as what they are: public servants.

 

[Danoff]

I think regardless of outcome, Sanders vs. Trump is a win for Russia.

 

[McLaren]

So... @PocketZeven.... remember that talk about me not wanting some disconnected billionaire running the country.
You sure if you were American this is the guy you would be supporting? Does he really seem in touch with the average american to you?
More and more as the election cycle progresses he is proving himself to he as pompous, pampered and clueless as I expect any multi billionaire to be.

Warren has been attacking Mike hard on another front that makes him even more similar to Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/

 

[Dennisch]

Warren has been attacking Mike hard on another front that makes him even more similar to Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/

South Park covered this.

 

[Imari]

Everybody seems to focus on his flaws and not his achievments.

This is true of pretty much all the candidates. You know why? Because we have the campaigns themselves to paint pretty pictures for us of all the wonderful things that they've done, orphans saved, endangered species brought back from the brink of extinction, scientific breakthroughs masterminded and so forth.

But for some reason the campaigns aren't that interested in providing a balanced picture of both positive and negative aspects of a candidate. So there's a pretty gaping vacancy there waiting to be filled, for someone to provide information on the less savoury aspects of candidates that might be of relevance to the voters and the public in general. Enter the role of the media.

All people not being entirely identical, there's going to be some differences in how much salacious information exists on them. Likewise, how worthwhile the media sees it as being to research or publish said information is going to vary depending on the candidate in question. But the Democratic frontrunners are all going to be pretty heavily scrutinised, and if there's something newsworthy there then it's almost certainly going to come out. As it should, this is one of the important roles of the media in politics.

I get that you think that people should be focusing on Bloombergs achievements and not thinking too much about any of the bad stuff he's done just in case they're put off voting for him, but you should probably realise that a significant proportion of people would prefer to have as much data as possible from which to create an informed choice. That Bloomberg has a history of authoritarian and racially biased policing is relevant. That he has a history of sexual misconduct is relevant. That he had the law changed undemocratically simply so that he could remain in office is relevant. Just because Trump has a history that includes more racism and more sexual misconduct doesn't necessarily make Bloomberg a comfortable choice for some people, nor should it. Behaviour should not be normalised around the most extreme examples.

 

[PocketZeven]

This is true of pretty much all the candidates. You know why? Because we have the campaigns themselves to paint pretty pictures for us of all the wonderful things that they've done, orphans saved, endangered species brought back from the brink of extinction, scientific breakthroughs masterminded and so forth.

But for some reason the campaigns aren't that interested in providing a balanced picture of both positive and negative aspects of a candidate. So there's a pretty gaping vacancy there waiting to be filled, for someone to provide information on the less savoury aspects of candidates that might be of relevance to the voters and the public in general. Enter the role of the media.

All people not being entirely identical, there's going to be some differences in how much salacious information exists on them. Likewise, how worthwhile the media sees it as being to research or publish said information is going to vary depending on the candidate in question. But the Democratic frontrunners are all going to be pretty heavily scrutinised, and if there's something newsworthy there then it's almost certainly going to come out. As it should, this is one of the important roles of the media in politics.

I get that you think that people should be focusing on Bloombergs achievements and not thinking too much about any of the bad stuff he's done just in case they're put off voting for him, but you should probably realise that a significant proportion of people would prefer to have as much data as possible from which to create an informed choice. That Bloomberg has a history of authoritarian and racially biased policing is relevant. That he has a history of sexual misconduct is relevant. That he had the law changed undemocratically simply so that he could remain in office is relevant. Just because Trump has a history that includes more racism and more sexual misconduct doesn't necessarily make Bloomberg a comfortable choice for some people, nor should it. Behaviour should not be normalised around the most extreme examples.

I dont think Bloomberg is any better then Clinton or visa versa, however I rate Trump extremely low. I get that you are definatelt not a fan of him and that he, in many ways, is kind of a leftwing mirror image of Trump. In my view however Trump is a much more dangerous individual then Clinton and bloomberg combined.

 

[Darla Starch]

Imagine my absolute shock. /s

 

[Dennisch]

I can see a blue one going rogue in November, just as a cherry on top of Trump's reign.

 

[mustafur]

Bernie is leading Nevada by such a margin they have already called it at 4% reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/22/us/elections/results-nevada-caucus.html

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Looks like Trump is feeling the Bern.

 

[Keef]

Looks like Trump is feeling the Bern.

You could look at this as a (sick and twisted) sign of respect, or you could look at this from a tactical perspective. If Trump associates himself with Bernie, as if they're friends or something, it could turn Bernie supporters away because their ultimate enemy is Trump.

Also there's this story about Bernie's campaign being briefed about Russian influence. Russia believes that Trump can beat Bernie, so they're "helping" Bernie's campaign. It also has the effect of associating Bernie with Russian influence, which of course is another of Democrats' biggest enemies. They're just trying to create chaos basically.

This is what a real president says about Russia and their influences.

Imagine my absolute shock. /s

Chris Matthews still suffers from Red Scare lmao.

Mike Trump, I mean Donald Bloomberg already threw half a billion dollar, half a ****ing billion dollars towards his campaign.

Moronic.

It was a risky move because once Bernie is president, Troomberg is going to have trouble making that money back.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

You could look at this as a (sick and twisted) sign of respect, or you could look at this from a tactical perspective. If Trump associates himself with Bernie, as if they're friends or something, it could turn Bernie supporters away because their ultimate enemy is Trump.

I think it was more tactical, but I don't see that at all. Trump says at the end "...& don’t let them take it away from you!". I think Trump believes beating Bernie would be a hell of a lot easier than beating Bloomberg, or even Biden.

I think Bernie is winning the primary because his base (and I believe he is the only Democrat that has a real diehard base) is very motivated. Bernie gets real love from his supporters, and votes.

Most people sit out the primaries. Look at the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez election. She beat a high ranking 10 term incumbent in the primary with only 15,897 votes. Her base was motivated and showed up to vote, while most Democrats stayed home.

 

[mustafur]

Most people sit out the primaries. Look at the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez election. She beat a high ranking 10 term incumbent in the primary with only 15,897 votes. Her base was motivated and showed up to vote, while most Democrats stayed home.

House Primaries are all like those, it's a massive difference between a House primary and primary for the President, its a poor comparison.

 

[Keef]

I think Trump believes beating Bernie would be a hell of a lot easier than beating Bloomberg

Except he said this, where he'd rather run against Bloomberg than Bernie. That's why I'm conflicted why Trump would congratulate Bernie. Maybe it is a genuine sign of respect but I'm predisposed to not believe that. Trump certainly has little respect for Bloomberg at all.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

House Primaries are all like those, it's a massive difference between a House primary and primary for the President, its a poor comparison.

Yeah, you are kinda right about that.

If there are a great number of anti-socialist Democrats that were planning on sitting home in the next primary, Nevada will be a wake up call. I am sure they will get out and vote. I guess we have to wait a week till South Carolina to see.

Except he said this, where he'd rather run against Bloomberg than Bernie.

And he said this.

 

[Rallywagon]

Sorry for the delay replying. Yesterday wasnt a good day and and I was quite piqued. I didn't I that to seep into the discussion here. In a much better mood this morning so back to it.

You defeated your own argument there.

Yes, you can share experiences. And you can lack shared experiences. This is true of all people along lots of different lines. You seem to think that experiences based on skin color are significant. I'd guess the same was for gender. And the same being for income? Or wealth? Or how about age?

So if you have the same age as someone, and the same gender, but a different skin color and wealth... are you like this person or not? If you have the same income and skin color, but don't have the same wealth, age, or gender, are you like this person or not?

You share something with almost everyone, and your particular experiences are unique. Instead of looking for ways to marginalize a minority in one particular aspect (wealth in this particular case), look for ways to humanize and find commonality. Or perhaps even more important, look to more meaningful differences. Like whether someone is corrupt, immoral, pompous, clueless, or a "good" person.

Ok, this is my final bout on the topic. The thread has moved onand I'll move on. But let me say this. Class warfare is being waged. Hard. And the middle class is losing. Crony capitalism is class warfare. Wealth people, wealthy corporations are buying politicians to sway policies and affect laws. our country is becoming more of an oligarchy every day. This is class warfare have no doubt. As I stated, i do believe there are a few exception, but while lobbying still exists, while corporations sway taxes laws in a way that allows them to circumvent them, while tax brackets aren't affected by inflation and payroll taxes are heavily skewed towards the lower and middle class, while the workers are working and the fat cats are doled the cream, you can bet your ass I am more than happy to wade into class warfare as well. I am a humanist, not a pacifist, I am more than happy to fight the fight.