Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
dckingsfan wrote:Perfect for Bloomberg who is now third in the polls and will quickly pass Biden.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.”
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.
