Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The Democrat's roster for a Trump - beater in 2020


swordfish

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

As long as people are ok with him making the size of your soda a priority.......🤣

Then again, he may have even bigger issues on his plate....we shall see if his money can buy him out.....

https://newsone.com/3902452/michael-bloomberg-racist-quotes-through-years/

 

It was proven in 2016 that quotes in past years are not a factor at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

It was proven in 2016 that quotes in past years are not a factor at all.

Your threshold for “proven” is much lower than mine. Assuming that the valid data actually can somehow demonstrate that, and assuming the substance of the actual quotes being bandied about had no bearing on the “factor” the quotes played, it was one election. Not much of a sample size from which to conclude that something was “proven.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bobref said:

Your threshold for “proven” is much lower than mine. Assuming that the valid data actually can somehow demonstrate that, and assuming the substance of the actual quotes being bandied about had no bearing on the “factor” the quotes played, it was one election. Not much of a sample size from which to conclude that something was “proven.”

In the Court of Popular Opinion, proof is obviously not required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comments about farming and manufacturing by Bloomberg are illustrative of what created Trump, and obvious that the D party has not learned any lessons from 2016. What I have seen of the debates, and stump speeches by all of them clearly show they're pandering to people where they're already going to win. Honest question does Bernie's message play in OH, PA, MI, WI, states anyone has to win?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Socialist Delusions of Bernie Sanders: https://reason.com/2020/02/19/the-socialist-delusions-of-bernie-sanders/

Quote

Bernie Sanders leads the race for the Democratic nomination.

He may become America's first self-described "democratic socialist" president.

What does that mean?

Today, when Sanders talks about socialism, he says: "I'm not looking at Cuba. I'm looking at countries like Denmark and Sweden."

But Denmark and Sweden are not socialist. Denmark's prime minister even came to America to refute Sanders' claims, pointing out that "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy."

Both Denmark and Sweden do give citizens government-run health care and have bigger welfare programs than America has. However,  recently, they've moved away from socialism. Because their socialist policies killed economic growth, they cut regulations and ended government control of many industries.

Sanders probably doesn't know that. He, like many young people, just loves the idea of socialism.

For my new video this week, Stossel TV producer Maxim Lott went through hours of Sanders' old speeches. What he found reveals a lot about what Sanders believes.

When Sanders was mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he went out of his way to defend Fidel Castro. "He educated the kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society!" Fortunately, Sanders added, "Not to say Fidel Castro or Cuba are perfect."

No, they are not perfect. Castro's government tortured and murdered thousands. By confiscating private property, they destroyed the island's economy. Life got bad enough that thousands died trying to escape.

Even now in Cuba, most people try to live on less than $2 a day

Sanders focuses on other things, like: "They did a lot to eliminate illiteracy!"

Sanders has long had a soft spot for socialist countries. He chose to honeymoon in Communist Russia, where he said people "seem reasonably happy and content." He was "extremely impressed by their public transportation system…[the] cleanest, most effective mass transit system I've ever seen in my life!"

He praised Soviet youth programs: "Cultural programs go far beyond what we do in this country."

He did at least qualify his support, calling the Soviet government "authoritarian."

But Sanders made no such criticism after Nicaragua's socialist revolution. He praised the Sandinistas' land "reform" because they were "giving, for the first time in their lives, real land to farmers so that they can have something that they grow. Nobody denies that they are making significant progress."

Former landowners sure denied it. They'd had their land stolen. Sanders suggested that was OK because landowners are rich.

"Rich people, who used to have a good life there, are not terribly happy," he said. "As a socialist, the word socialism does not frighten me… (P)oor people respect that."

What about the hunger and poverty that socialism creates? Bernie had an odd take on that.

"American journalists talk about how bad a country is because people are lining up for food. That's a good thing! In other countries people don't line up for food; the rich get the food and the poor starve."

After he said he was "impressed" by Sandinista leaders, Sanders added, "Obviously I will be attacked by every editorial writer in the free press for being a dumb dupe."

I join them.

Bernie Sanders is indeed a "dumb dupe" about economics. Or as the Soviet Communists used to put it, "a useful idiot."

Under Ortega's rule, Nicaragua quickly fell further into poverty, and the socialists were voted out in 1990. Ortega later returned as a violent dictator. For most people in Nicaragua, Cuba, and other centrally planned economies, life is hell.

Once Sanders was elected to Congress, he mostly stopped praising violent socialist revolutions.

At that time, Communist governments in Europe were collapsing. It was convenient for embarrassed former supporters of those governments to rebrand themselves.

In Congress, Sanders would call himself an independent and, in the estimation of his fellow Vermonter, former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, he "votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time."

But Sanders has never taken back the enthusiastic praise he gave to socialist regimes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are any number of issues I take with any comparison of the US to Scandinavian countries. First and foremost is scale. Sweden for example is about the size of California. Yet has a population of less than 9 million people. Scandinavian countries are not big on immigration or accepting refugees. Yes personal taxes are somewhat high, but what makes the whole thing work is free markets. Low corporate taxes, less regulations, less government manipulation of the markets. 

https://medium.com/@freemarketserge/the-swedish-myth-how-free-market-reforms-saved-sweden-8d3bf24fb91f

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I questioned why Bloomberg would even get in these debates, he had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose, which pretty much exactly what happened last night in my opinion. He did make a couple of salient points, the self proclaimed socialist on the stage has three homes how does that work? When being beat up by Bernie about his wealth and lack of paying taxes, he agreed and said you made the laws. 

Bernie is becoming a bigger and bigger problem for the D's. Klobuchar, Warren, and Biden need to get out, their votes are siphoning votes away from anyone who could challenge Bernie, be it Mayor Pete or Bloomberg. I have said all along and still maintain, the D's will screw Bernie again, they realize if he's the nominee November will be a blood bath. 

The D's have been hedging their bets since the late summer, they've already told us the November election will be illegitimate, now the seeds are being planted that the D nominating process will be the same. I predict great entertainment moving towards Milwaukee.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Biden Is Happy To Talk About Michael Bloomberg's Stop-and-Frisk Record Because It Distracts From His Own Terrible Crime Policies: https://reason.com/2020/02/19/joe-biden-is-happy-to-talk-about-michael-bloombergs-stop-and-frisk-record-because-it-distracts-from-his-own-terrible-crime-policies/

Quote

Let's be very clear about one thing: Michael Bloomberg's half-hearted apologies about stop-and-frisk are a bunch of bullshit.

In Wednesday's Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, for example, the former New York City mayor attempted once again to appear contrite about the consequences of one of his signature policies, one that disproportionately (and purposefully, per Bloomberg's own comments) targeted minority communities. "If I go back and look at my time in office, the one thing I'm really worried about, embarrassed about is how it turned out with stop-and-frisk," Bloomberg said onstage before pivoting to talk about how crime rates fell in New York while he was mayor.

Bloomberg had to expect to be attacked over stop-and-frisk, so it's pretty sad that he couldn't come up with a more sincere-sounding answer. It's also telling that he phrased his response that way: "worried," then "embarrassed."

And crime rates? Yes, they fell in New York City—and kept falling after the constitution-shredding policy was mostly abandoned.

"It's not whether he apologies or not, it's the policy," former Vice President Joe Biden said, summing up the common-sense opinion of stop-and-frisk. "The policy was abhorrent."

But let's be clear about something else, too. One of the biggest beneficiaries of Wednesday night's dogpile on Bloomberg is Biden, whose own terrible record on criminal justice issues has suddenly fallen out of the spotlight. Unburdened from the role of apparent front-runner, Biden seems more comfortable on the attack—but his accurate criticism of Bloomberg's awfulness should not be allowed to obscure his own.

Need I remind you? Biden was instrumental in passing a 1984 anti-drug law that effectively created the modern civil asset forfeiture system, which law enforcement has regularly abused to seize cash, cars, homes, and other valuables from individuals who are often never charged with a crime.

In 1986, Biden co-sponsored the Anti-Drug Abuse Act—spurred by a moral panic over several high-profile deaths linked to cocaine—that added more mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug crimes, including the provision requiring a five-year prison term for anyone convicted of possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of powdered cocaine. That massive discrepancy "unjustly and disproportionately" penalized African Americans and poor communities, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a 2006 report on the law.

Most famously, Biden championed the 1994 crime bill and its harsh "three-strikes" rule, which imposed life sentences for anyone convicted of a violent felony if they had two prior offenses on their record—including drug crimes.

If Bloomberg is guilty of empowering police officers to disregard individuals' rights in pursuit of elusive criminals, then Biden is equally guilty of empowering prosecutors to lock up those alleged "predators" and throw away the key.

In short, they represent two separate but equally important groups within the criminal justice system—and when it comes to empowering police and prosecutors to violate your rights, neither Bloomberg nor Biden have a record worth bragging about.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the collapse of the failed impeachment trial, Dan Bingino predicted the Democrats would return to their "snuggy" blanket of Russia collusion. The liberal mainstream media is Fake News and are the enemy of the American people.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete Buttigieg's Sovietesque Plan for Rural Revitalization: https://mises.org/wire/pete-buttigiegs-sovietesque-plan-rural-revitalization

Quote

In his bid for the presidency, Pete Buttigieg rhetorically grabs a tiger by the tail, so to speak. Not the Siberian tiger still clutched by Russia, but an American mountain lion.

The tails in both instances are vestiges of towns and cities far from viable markets, a situation that leaves those remaining with little hope for economic expansion. These lives of despair are encouraged by government policies purporting to revitalize rural areas whose futures have long since passed. So, instead of migrating to areas with remunerative prospects, folks remain.

The book The Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners Left Russia in the Cold details the failure of centralized planners to encourage economic growth in the hinterlands east of the Urals. For years, Russia has been trying to settle the wilds of its frozen tundra. First, the tsars encouraged population movement, then the Soviets commanded it. The result today is cities crumbling in Siberia, far removed from population centers and markets.

As these cities age, Russia is burdened by their very existence. A solution under a system of interventionism does not exist. And a semiauthoritarian government cannot simply let its masses exit the tundra and find their own productive places to live and work, places likely within the already burdened population centers of Moscow, etc.

We look at such a system—centrally planned cities that are inefficient and unprofitable, far removed from centers of commerce—as vestiges of the Evil Empire. Yet, the US does the very same thing, despite Ludwig von Mises's clear refutation of the ability of central planners to achieve anything greater than a sustained descent toward general starvation.

Russia suffers due to the cost of supporting the residents of cities that are not efficiently located. At the same time, the US suffers due to similar redistributive measures supporting residents in regions that no longer provide jobs. In both cases, residents remain in areas that are unproductive while the rest of their respective nations suffer due to the redistribution of wealth from economically productive regions to economically unproductive ones.

In the face of this, Buttigieg has proposed a plan to repopulate declining rural areas with immigrants, stating,

I'm proposing what we call "Community Renewal Visas" that when a community that is very much in need of growing its population, recognizes that, and makes a choice to welcome more than its share of new Americans that we create a fast-track, if they apply for an allotment of visas, that goes to those who are willing to be in those areas that maybe are hurting for population but have great potential.

Who will recognize potential (great or small) in a struggling area? Acting men and women? Entrepreneurs seeking to satisfy consumer desires? No. Potential will be defined politically, just as in Russia and the former Soviet Union.

And when populations in depressed areas are propped up for political reasons, more taxpayers dollars are likely to follow. Areas designated as impoverished by government already receive federal dollars. For the local politicians, federal largess is a cash cow. Federal appropriations include dollars earmarked for rural poverty assistance, road and infrastructure improvements, new and revitalized schools, etc. Whether it's the smooth asphalt on roads that have little residential or commercial traffic or war on poverty–type programs such as federal support for education, politicians—local, state, and federal—benefit at the polls by being the providers of this pork.

However, struggling rural areas are impoverished because high-paying jobs do not exist there. So, instead of having acting individuals move to areas of economic prosperity, the feds attempt to chain rural residents to areas where the golden years are long gone.

You hear the politicians claim that the infrastructure needs to be improved and then jobs will follow. And now Buttigieg wants additional residents, claiming that renewal will follow. This is similar to the pronouncements coming from the Soviet planners of yore. Both claims are fallacious and without merit. Building a new school and paving additional roads in declining rural regions will not encourage businesses to relocate any more than doing the same in Siberia resulted in long-term, sustainable enterprises, nor will adding citizens to an area that has no need for them.

Business owners—entrepreneurs—are not fooled by the plaintive tales spun by the vote-hungry class. Businesses locate in the areas that their owners deem most profitable. The lure of paved roads, new schools, government support programs, and additional unemployed workers are not enough to counteract (say) the physical distance to market.

Of course, by adding more residents (future citizens and voters) to these regions the government will lock even more voters in to lives of tax dependency. Federal dollars will be spent by local and state politicians in a manner not too different from that of the Soviet planners; local infrastructure will be increased where it is not needed, and fruitless support programs will be created or expanded.

Sure, in the short run, some rural residents will benefit by being employed in these governmental works projects. But these very same residents will be unemployed once the projects or programs lose federal funding. The cycle of poverty will continue.

As harsh as it sounds, the only way to improve the lives of the residents of struggling rural regions is to remove government support. Let these folks face the true cost of their decisions. Some will accept reduced lifestyles and remain to enjoy the natural features of these still wild regions, while others will migrate to areas where they can attain higher-paying jobs. Either way, acting individuals will demonstrate their preferences within a market environment. And US taxpayers will not have to continue funding what has become America's Siberia.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/top-democrat-slams-trump-job-numbers-black-americans-were-fully-employed-during-slavery

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn pushed back against claims of record-low unemployment for black Americans under the Trump administration with a reference to slavery.

The South Carolina Democrat joined Fox News's Neil Cavuto on Tuesday to discuss jobs, the 2020 election, and if President Trump “delivered the goods for a lot of African Americans.”

“I’m saying that the African American unemployment is not the lowest it’s ever been unless you count slavery,” Clyburn said. “We were fully employed during slavery. So this all depends on how you measure this up.”

That little quote has been overlooked by about everyone......."Oh that's just old Uncle Jim", never mind him, but he ain't no racist....he just hates the orange people......

 

  • Confused 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...