Most have since they ran out of other people’s money to keep them alive.
^ +1
I’d be hesitant to vote for Bloomberg. I’m with Would You Look…, except I’d probably vote for Johnson or Trump, because F U politicians.
I obviously can’t vote, but Bloomberg is a guy that I’d definitely vote for. Especially if the alternative is any other candidate currently in this mess. I liked Romney, but apparently America did not…
I would take a look at his candidacy.
The Republican Party missed there shot about 10 years ago to modernize and rid itself of evangelical christians as its fundamental base. The GOP should have just been honest with itself and admitted that times are “a-changing” and it can no longer win general elections based solely on “the USA is collapsing”.
- Abortion is here to stay
- Immigration is a good thing
- And if you want citizens to respect the 2nd amendment please recognize the 1st and leave god out of your speeches
^ Unfortunately fundamentalist Christians are a huge voting block in the U.S. Remember winning an election is a turn out battle. The issues that get these rednecks to the ballot box are things like abortion, gays and Muslims. The GOP banks on the intelligent Republican voters realising that these are all empty promises as they can’t constitutionally do anything about any of those three items.
Evangelical Christians are 1/4 of US voters and vote nearly 80% for republicans. Telling republicans to cast them off would be the same as telling democrats to cast off both black and Hispanic voters (both groups tend to be deeply religious by the way).
No offense taken. In case you’re wondering.
Seeing as how he said he is well off enough now that it would hurt him economically, yet he still makes that decision, thats a pretty strong statement. Someone able to vote for something other than what is in their own personal best interest? Shocking. I feel quite similar to him and I think a lot of people my age who grew up in similar circumstances do as well.
I retract my earlier statement about you. You appear to be sane.
You’re kind of making my point. There are two basic types of people that support liberal fiscal policies. One is the older, wealthier crowd that think they have too much and are more than willing to spread the wealth, literally. The second group are Sanders supporters that just don’t understand basic economics and fall for slogans like “free college tuition.”
Both groups are ignorant but I disdain the former because they have the means to use their wealth to help their community (or whatever cause they want) but would rather force their economic beliefs on me. They fail to understand that government spending is completely inefficient and social programs don’t actually help anyone long-term; that is, they don’t address actual problems. They should know better, so they can kindly f’uck off.
The latter group is made up of college kids that visualize some pseudo-utopian society where everyone can get what they want for nothing (granted, that’s extremely simplistic). But, I don’t necessarily fault them for their beliefs. They just don’t know any better. They don’t understand things like entitlement programs, national debt, or even their own personal finances. They just want a president that will tell them everything is going to be fine. If they actually get it, and that president can actually implement far left economic policies, these kids are going to wake up when they’re 60 and realize what a world of pain they brought upon themselves and their country.
fiscal liberals are lazy fucks. The ones without money want free stuff without working for it. The wealthy ones want someone else to spread their wealth for them. They’re both willing to sacrifice the first basic rule of civilized man (no man has the right to force another man, unprovoked, to do anything) because it’s easier than doing the actual work of making something out of yourself or doing something to help the neighbor you claim to love so much. In short fiscal liberals are the scum of civilized society.
Ah theres that classic conservative/libertarian condescending tone! “Lets just do what I know to be true, the other side just doesnt realize their policies dont work! When they grow up a little they will see the way the world works.” It doesnt really matter because at some point in the next 200 or so years the production of everything we need in life will be so automated and jobs will be so scarce there will have to be some sort of universal basic income.
Hasn’t Bloomberg already said that he will only run if its Sanders Vs Trump? If Clinton is the nominee (as is still likely) then Bloomberg will not get in her way.
Clinton beats Trump and Cruz easily I think. Rubio/Kasich or Kasich/Rubio would probably win in my opinion. Bush a no hoper at this stage.
I think anyone beats Sanders. He would be spun as an old socialist/atheist draft dodger unfit to be commander in chief. He is even more unelectable than Trump in a general election.
While I don’t hold quite the distain that Sweep and Turd do, I do find MR’s perspective a bit irresponsible. I have no problem with him wanting to give back, but I find the “let’s try it and see if it works” idea to be irresponsible, kind of like “Hey, we don’t need to read or understand Obamacare, let’s pass it and see how it works.”
The idea that the next president can just fix things if Sanders’ ideas don’t work is a very dangerous idea. While I think it will be next to impossible for him to actually get anything through congress, let’s assume he does. Let’s assume he gets free college through and it proves to be so expensive that there’s no way it can be sustained. What’s the next president supposed to do? Tell kids getting a free education that it’s no longer free? Kick them out of school if they can’t pay? Grandfather them but tell the HS senior “Sorry kid, you’re screwed. It’s not our fault your parents stopped saving for your college education 3 years ago because we told them it’s free.”
If he wants to experiment with something like free college, let him run for governor of Vermont and do it there. If it works, great, roll it out to the rest of the country. If it doesn’t work, sorry Vermont, but at least we didn’t screw the whole country.
Think of it this way, liberals get pissed off when conservatives impose their social values on them (and rightfully so). I see no difference when liberals want to impose their fiscal policies on conservatives.
It’s not about who’s right or wrong. It’s about ego and one side thinking they know what’s best for the entire country. Just as I don’t want laws governing what I can do in my bedroom, I don’t want laws governing my wallet.
Conservatives are certainly righteous, but the left is so damn egotistical and patronizing they’re every bit as infuriating.
Aye. Even if things are automated, that doesn’t mean that all resources become infinitely attainable. Automation doesn’t take away the need for trade, services, or basic analysis to make more money using my robot versus yours. Economics is the study of scarce resources and how to most efficiently use them. A competitive free market is the best, fairest, and more moral way to do so - afterall, I can’t make a profit unless I satisfy my customer via a mutually agreeable trade. Printing money or stealing from the rich who actually are providing the most benefits is harmful to all of society. No one is entitled to any of these BS programs.
Thats a fair enough assessment. I agree liberals can be a bit loose with the purse strings and how that can be annoying.
I think a large part of the disconnect in this country politically is the urban vs rural makeup I have no problem paying more because living in a large city I use many shared services and enjoy having more things added to that list. However in less populated areas I can see where that would be annoying as it is more of the small town feel which is more self reliant and where the people would rather be taxed less, have less services provided, and deal with things on their own. Two completely different ways of life and unfortunately its difficult to reconcile them.
^ Stop being reasonable and trying to see the other side of things. Political leaders won’t stand for it.
Would not vote for Bloomberg (assuming I voted). Don’t like his stance against all guns and I think he views the nation through too much of a Manhattanite lens.