ImageImageImageImageImage

Political Roundtable Part XXVII

Moderators: montestewart, nate33, LyricalRico

I_Like_Dirt
RealGM
Posts: 27,918
And1: 5,382
Joined: Jul 12, 2003
Location: Boardman gets paid!

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1541 » by I_Like_Dirt » Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:44 pm

dckingsfan wrote:Perfect for Bloomberg who is now third in the polls and will quickly pass Biden.


Probably, yeah. I think he'd fit great with Bernie, too, to be honest, though I doubt Bernie goes there. Maybe not the greatest choice for Warren if only because she's got her plan much more in place but he wouldn't be awful there and he'd be an excellent choice for Biden in the same way he would be for Bloomberg.
Bucket! Bucket!
Wizardspride
RealGM
Posts: 12,145
And1: 6,063
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Location: Olney, MD/Kailua/Kaneohe, HI
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1542 » by Wizardspride » Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:59 pm

Read on Twitter
?s=19
President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,017
And1: 1,864
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1543 » by Zonkerbl » Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:31 pm

Yeah if the Dems get the trifecta in 2020 they absolutely need to stack the Supreme court and give statehood to DC and Puerto Rico. Gloves are off now.
daoneandonly - "You just said all cities are liberal. Cities are in states, so how the heck can all cities be liberal but all states arent? because you're full of crap"
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 16,543
And1: 3,978
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1544 » by dckingsfan » Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:09 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:Yeah if the Dems get the trifecta in 2020 they absolutely need to stack the Supreme court and give statehood to DC and Puerto Rico. Gloves are off now.

Just out of curiosity - what makes you think there is a solid "if" for the senate? Trying to buoy my spirits that there will be change.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 39,273
And1: 5,974
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1545 » by Ruzious » Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:36 pm

Ruzious wrote:For today's episode of WH Daily Douche, our scandal of the day is https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barr-blasts-trumps-tweets-impossible-for-me-to-do-my-job-abc-news-exclusive/ar-BBZYHjr?li=BBnb7Kz Trump is threatening NY and Andrew Cuomo if NY doesn't drop all investigations regarding the Administration and his personal finances. He's also requiring NY to lower taxes. Apparently NY State AG Letitia James has been doing her job really well, and Trump's not happy about that. She ain't backing down.

Today's episode is already in and reported by... Fox News' Geraldo Rivera. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tells-geraldo-he-sent-giuliani-to-ukraine-not-sorry-for-it/ar-BBZZ7kE?li=BBnb7Kz Previously, Trump said he had nothing to do with Rudy going to Ukraine. Now, he says he sent him and he's not at all sorry for it. And then he proceeded to blame James Comey for it - his choices are to deal with the Comeys of the world or do it his way.

And no, we can't make up stuff this absurd - absurd mainly in that people now routinely accept it - without even being phased. We are openly lied to on a routine basis like that by the President of the US - and then he says he's proud of it and really had to do it because of the Comeys of the world. And does any dotart still pretend not to know why Trump sent Rudy? How did we get here to where people don't even flinch from this ___?
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
User avatar
Kanyewest
General Manager
Posts: 7,800
And1: 1,310
Joined: Jul 05, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1546 » by Kanyewest » Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:37 pm

Pointgod wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
I_Like_Dirt wrote:Probably. The interesting thing about Yang is he's basically the only Democratic candidate where I think he'd make a solid VP candidate. Normally I don't like the idea of picking another of the candidates is a great idea and I still think that could easily be the best course of action; it still absolutely is in the case of all the other candidates. Yang, though, brings in potential voters that legitimately won't vote at all if he's not there and that's something the Democrats need. I don't even think it matters who the winner is; Yang would be a solid choice. Of course, it doesn't have to be him but the more I think about it the more it makes sense.

Perfect for Bloomberg who is now third in the polls and will quickly pass Biden.


Doing the math, Bernie is all but guaranteed the nomination if other candidates don’t drop out early. If some establishment idiots convinced Bloomberg to get into the race, well congratulations you just handed Bernie the nomination you morons. It’s hilariously stupid. Bloomberg is not winning the nomination, former Republican and notorious racist is not going to appeal to the Democratic base.


Bloomberg is somehow doing well in the head to head polls against Trump- probably because he hasn't had to appear on the debate stage and maybe he gets more ex-Republicans. Still, I am not sure he can withstand all those negative attacks. (One would also hope that some would do better as they get more name recognition at least compared to Bloomberg).

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us02102020_uyid781.pdf/

• Bloomberg tops Trump 51 – 42 percent;
• Sanders defeats Trump 51 – 43 percent;
• Biden beats Trump 50 – 43 percent;
• Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 – 43 percent;
• Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 – 44 percent;
• Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 – 43 percent
User avatar
Kanyewest
General Manager
Posts: 7,800
And1: 1,310
Joined: Jul 05, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1547 » by Kanyewest » Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:41 pm

For DC statehood to pass, it requires the consent of two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and two-thirds of the current states.
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 7,987
And1: 1,357
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1548 » by pancakes3 » Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:46 pm

bloomberg will turn off a lot of far left, bernie-bro types but that only depresses voter turnout in solidly blue districts anyway. the question is whether he's able to get minorities and independents out in sufficient numbers.
Bullets -> Wizards
Wizardspride
RealGM
Posts: 12,145
And1: 6,063
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Location: Olney, MD/Kailua/Kaneohe, HI
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1549 » by Wizardspride » Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:37 pm

Read on Twitter
?s=19
President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries
Wizardspride
RealGM
Posts: 12,145
And1: 6,063
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Location: Olney, MD/Kailua/Kaneohe, HI
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1550 » by Wizardspride » Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:50 pm

Read on Twitter
?s=19
President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries
Pointgod
General Manager
Posts: 8,467
And1: 8,074
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1551 » by Pointgod » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:42 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:Perfect for Bloomberg who is now third in the polls and will quickly pass Biden.

Doing the math, Bernie is all but guaranteed the nomination if other candidates don’t drop out early. If some establishment idiots convinced Bloomberg to get into the race, well congratulations you just handed Bernie the nomination you morons. It’s hilariously stupid. Bloomberg is not winning the nomination, former Republican and notorious racist is not going to appeal to the Democratic base.

Careful what you wish for... If Biden drops out... you could actually see Bloomberg get enough votes for a contested convention. That is all that would have to happen.


The primary is going to end in a contested convention unless more candidates drop early. Bernie’s cap is around 30 to 35%% and it’s because the moderates are splitting the rest of the vote that he’s winning. Heading into Super Tuesday a state like California has 400 delegates, it’s possible he could come out of there with a lead of over a hundred delegates and it’s probable that both no one catches up to him and he doesn’t reach the required delegates for the nomination. In the case of a contested convention I can’t see the DNC giving a billionaire racist former Republican the nod over the person with a huge delegate lead. It’s completely within the rules to do so but it would destroy the Democratic Party. I think if it’s close between Bernie and another Moderate candidate or unexpectedly Warren then it’s a lot less divisive.
Pointgod
General Manager
Posts: 8,467
And1: 8,074
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1552 » by Pointgod » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:47 pm

Kanyewest wrote:For DC statehood to pass, it requires the consent of two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and two-thirds of the current states.


So in other words it’s not happening.
Pointgod
General Manager
Posts: 8,467
And1: 8,074
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1553 » by Pointgod » Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:49 pm

pancakes3 wrote:bloomberg will turn off a lot of far left, bernie-bro types but that only depresses voter turnout in solidly blue districts anyway. the question is whether he's able to get minorities and independents out in sufficient numbers.


Have you seen the recent clips about him? He’s not winning minority voters. If Hillary could be killed for saying super predators, I don’t see how Bloomberg gets a pass.
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 7,987
And1: 1,357
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1554 » by pancakes3 » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:01 pm

Pointgod wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:bloomberg will turn off a lot of far left, bernie-bro types but that only depresses voter turnout in solidly blue districts anyway. the question is whether he's able to get minorities and independents out in sufficient numbers.


Have you seen the recent clips about him? He’s not winning minority voters. If Hillary could be killed for saying super predators, I don’t see how Bloomberg gets a pass.


boomers are boomers first and minorities second. i can see old minorities, especially not-black minorities, shrugging it off. or even AA voters brushing it off. as an example, if you're nigerian and this travel ban is in place, are you going to sit out of the election based on a principled stand vs boomberg's stop-and-frisk comments from the 90's? maybe, but i don't think it's a foregone conclusion.
Bullets -> Wizards
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 16,543
And1: 3,978
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1555 » by dckingsfan » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:05 pm

Pointgod wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
Pointgod wrote:Doing the math, Bernie is all but guaranteed the nomination if other candidates don’t drop out early. If some establishment idiots convinced Bloomberg to get into the race, well congratulations you just handed Bernie the nomination you morons. It’s hilariously stupid. Bloomberg is not winning the nomination, former Republican and notorious racist is not going to appeal to the Democratic base.

Careful what you wish for... If Biden drops out... you could actually see Bloomberg get enough votes for a contested convention. That is all that would have to happen.

The primary is going to end in a contested convention unless more candidates drop early. Bernie’s cap is around 30 to 35%% and it’s because the moderates are splitting the rest of the vote that he’s winning. Heading into Super Tuesday a state like California has 400 delegates, it’s possible he could come out of there with a lead of over a hundred delegates and it’s probable that both no one catches up to him and he doesn’t reach the required delegates for the nomination. In the case of a contested convention I can’t see the DNC giving a billionaire racist former Republican the nod over the person with a huge delegate lead. It’s completely within the rules to do so but it would destroy the Democratic Party. I think if it’s close between Bernie and another Moderate candidate or unexpectedly Warren then it’s a lot less divisive.

Agreed with your thinking (other than I don't think Bloomberg is a racist).
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 16,543
And1: 3,978
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1556 » by dckingsfan » Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:07 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:bloomberg will turn off a lot of far left, bernie-bro types but that only depresses voter turnout in solidly blue districts anyway. the question is whether he's able to get minorities and independents out in sufficient numbers.


Have you seen the recent clips about him? He’s not winning minority voters. If Hillary could be killed for saying super predators, I don’t see how Bloomberg gets a pass.


boomers are boomers first and minorities second. i can see old minorities, especially not-black minorities, shrugging it off. or even AA voters brushing it off. as an example, if you're nigerian and this travel ban is in place, are you going to sit out of the election based on a principled stand vs boomberg's stop-and-frisk comments from the 90's? maybe, but i don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/houston-mayor-backs-bloomberg-and-will-aid-outreach-to-black-voters/ar-BBZWQVn
Pointgod
General Manager
Posts: 8,467
And1: 8,074
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1557 » by Pointgod » Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:41 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:bloomberg will turn off a lot of far left, bernie-bro types but that only depresses voter turnout in solidly blue districts anyway. the question is whether he's able to get minorities and independents out in sufficient numbers.


Have you seen the recent clips about him? He’s not winning minority voters. If Hillary could be killed for saying super predators, I don’t see how Bloomberg gets a pass.


boomers are boomers first and minorities second. i can see old minorities, especially not-black minorities, shrugging it off. or even AA voters brushing it off. as an example, if you're nigerian and this travel ban is in place, are you going to sit out of the election based on a principled stand vs boomberg's stop-and-frisk comments from the 90's? maybe, but i don't think it's a foregone conclusion.


Check the link. Bloomberg made his comments about stop and frisk 5 years ago! And he’s not just making gaffes or missteps he’s defending racist policies that shows character and how he would govern as President.

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

“Ninety-five percent of murders — murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops,” Bloomberg said while speaking the Aspen Institute in 2015 in a recently resurfaced minute-long clip that went viral this week and echoed his previous defenses of stop and frisk. “They are male, minorities, 16-25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city (inaudible). And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of people that are getting killed.”


“Redlining, if you remember, was the term where banks took whole neighborhoods and said people in these neighborhoods are poor, they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages,” he said at the time. “Tell your salesmen don’t go into those areas. And then Congress got involved and local elected officials as well. And said, ‘Oh, that’s not fair. These people should be able to get credit.’ And once you started pushing in that direction, banks started making more and more loans where the credit of the person buying the house wasn’t as good as you would like.”


Anyway I don’t think that Bloomberg will get to the point where he’s a viable candidate for the Democratic Party. Bloomberg was a Republican and he literally supported George Bush for re-election in 2004. I’m sure there’s a lot more oppo research to drop. Why select Bloomberg when Pete is a much better alternative? I think by the point you get to Super Tuesday Pete will be more more of a presence. It will be a good litmus test for Democratic voters to see if they’ll essentially do what Republicans did with Trump.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 16,543
And1: 3,978
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1558 » by dckingsfan » Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:36 am

Pointgod wrote:
“Redlining, if you remember, was the term where banks took whole neighborhoods and said people in these neighborhoods are poor, they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages,” he said at the time. “Tell your salesmen don’t go into those areas. And then Congress got involved and local elected officials as well. And said, ‘Oh, that’s not fair. These people should be able to get credit.’ And once you started pushing in that direction, banks started making more and more loans where the credit of the person buying the house wasn’t as good as you would like.”

You know he was right. There was a direct relationship between the subprime mortgage crisis, legislation (and HUD support) and Freddie and Fannie and (low-risk) securities.

That quote doesn't make him racist. BTW, who got hurt the most by those government policies? Those in those redlined areas... Maybe it makes him the opposite saying that you shouldn't loan money to someone that can't afford a house. If you do that the price of houses in those areas will fall.

He is saying that government policies enabled banks to go in and sell subprime mortgages and that hurt those we should have been protecting.
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 7,987
And1: 1,357
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1559 » by pancakes3 » Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:13 am

those comments do make him racist bc redlining was about not selling to BLACK people, using unsubstantiated economic reasons as pretext for the refusal. he's also wrong bc it was the lack of regulations that allowed banks to extend subprime mortgages, not the implementation of it.

and for the record, i'm not making an argument in favor of bloomberg, i just don't think his checkered stance re: race specifically is an absolute bar on him receiving votes from minorities. he's a bad candidate for sure, and definitely harbors racist biases. even couching his disdain for minorities under a guise of disdain for poor people disqualifies him as a candidate (in a vacuum). but we live in this relativistic society and trump is sitting on the other end of the fulcrum.
Bullets -> Wizards
Pointgod
General Manager
Posts: 8,467
And1: 8,074
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVII 

Post#1560 » by Pointgod » Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:03 am

dckingsfan wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
“Redlining, if you remember, was the term where banks took whole neighborhoods and said people in these neighborhoods are poor, they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages,” he said at the time. “Tell your salesmen don’t go into those areas. And then Congress got involved and local elected officials as well. And said, ‘Oh, that’s not fair. These people should be able to get credit.’ And once you started pushing in that direction, banks started making more and more loans where the credit of the person buying the house wasn’t as good as you would like.”

You know he was right. There was a direct relationship between the subprime mortgage crisis, legislation (and HUD support) and Freddie and Fannie and (low-risk) securities.

That quote doesn't make him racist. BTW, who got hurt the most by those government policies? Those in those redlined areas... Maybe it makes him the opposite saying that you shouldn't loan money to someone that can't afford a house. If you do that the price of houses in those areas will fall.

He is saying that government policies enabled banks to go in and sell subprime mortgages and that hurt those we should have been protecting.


I don’t disagree with him about the cause of the mortgage crisis, but you need to put the blame on the banks. Redlining is racist and unconstitutional full stop. So defending the practice is not going to get support from black people. If you read up on the history of it set black people back decades and some communities still haven’t recovered.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/redlining-was-banned-50-years-ago-its-still-hurting-minorities-today/

Return to Washington Wizards