Typical bullshit from you. You cut off the rest of my quote where I say "Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me."
Typical bullshit from you. You cut off the rest of my quote where I say "Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me."
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Typical bullshit from you. You cut off the rest of my quote where I say "Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me."
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?
I don't have to do math if all I agree with is the premise that Bloomberg could do a lot of great things with all that money rather than flushing it down the toilet with his "campaign." And while these two on MSNBC seem to think that giving a million dollars to everyone is one of those great things, I think there's many, many others things $550 million dollars can do.
Typical bullshit from you. You cut off the rest of my quote where I say "Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me."
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?
I don't have to do math if all I agree with is the premise that Bloomberg could do a lot of great things with all that money rather than flushing it down the toilet with his "campaign." And while these two on MSNBC seem to think that giving a million dollars to everyone is one of those great things, I think there's many, many others things $550 million dollars can do.
Typical bullshit from you. You cut off the rest of my quote where I say "Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me."
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?
I don't have to do math if all I agree with is the premise that Bloomberg could do a lot of great things with all that money rather than flushing it down the toilet with his "campaign." And while these two on MSNBC seem to think that giving a million dollars to everyone is one of those great things, I think there's many, many others things $550 million dollars can do.
like buy a couple arms manufacturers and their patents and shut the fuckers down.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Typical bullshit from you. You cut off the rest of my quote where I say "Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me."
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?
I don't have to do math if all I agree with is the premise that Bloomberg could do a lot of great things with all that money rather than flushing it down the toilet with his "campaign." And while these two on MSNBC seem to think that giving a million dollars to everyone is one of those great things, I think there's many, many others things $550 million dollars can do.
But do you understand what the funny thing about the video and tweet is?
It is not that Bloomberg would never give away a million dollars to every citizen...
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president. At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government. We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way.
So what happens?
Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation. This is all well and good. However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college. If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president. The last time this happened was 1824. Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.
Fail to see the problem..(?)
With the House choosing the President?
Yes.
I guess your opinion on that would change based on who controls the House, wouldn't it? Or do you think it's generally the right situation for the House to have the final say in who is the president?
If it means people have decided to have more than two parties representing, then yes on both I guess. If that is how the the law is and you do not want to change it (like it being the majority of votes choosing President (usually called "the popular vote") and removing the 270 threshold). People voted in the people into congress? So it would be a classic case of Representative democracy(?)
In Sweden, the prime minister is chosen by a majority in the parliament (a majority of the 349 votes). And we have "universal" healthcare. So seems to work decently. Even though I understand it is not exactly the same.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding completely your post. I'm tired. I'm leaving work in 30 minutes. I wasn't even suppose to work today.
and in before: THAT IS NOT HOW AMERICA WORKS.
If you had three viable candidates, then you could still end up in the House. No majority vote would be guaranteed by removing the EC. I would argue that US effectively has a pluralistic party system already. Certainly the D's do not represent monolithic thought, with there being a pretty wide chasm between the liberal and moderate wing. They are effectively forced to compromise among themselves to get bills passed by party line votes. Historically the R's have too (although not lately). You had the conservative R's and the Rockefeller R's who dominated the north with liberal social and conservative economic views.
Typical bullshit from you. You cut off the rest of my quote where I say "Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me."
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?
I don't have to do math if all I agree with is the premise that Bloomberg could do a lot of great things with all that money rather than flushing it down the toilet with his "campaign." And while these two on MSNBC seem to think that giving a million dollars to everyone is one of those great things, I think there's many, many others things $550 million dollars can do.
But do you understand what the funny thing about the video and tweet is?
It is not that Bloomberg would never give away a million dollars to every citizen...
-Timothy Burke calling something else stupid?
-MSNBC being critical of Bloomberg's outrageous spending when they, like Bloomberg, are part of the DNC's apparatus to get rid of Trump?
-Your interest in this tweet and what's supposed to be funny about it?
Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president. At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government. We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way.
So what happens?
Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation. This is all well and good. However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college. If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president. The last time this happened was 1824. Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.
Fail to see the problem..(?)
With the House choosing the President?
Yes.
I guess your opinion on that would change based on who controls the House, wouldn't it? Or do you think it's generally the right situation for the House to have the final say in who is the president?
If it means people have decided to have more than two parties representing, then yes on both I guess. If that is how the the law is and you do not want to change it (like it being the majority of votes choosing President (usually called "the popular vote") and removing the 270 threshold). People voted in the people into congress? So it would be a classic case of Representative democracy(?)
In Sweden, the prime minister is chosen by a majority in the parliament (a majority of the 349 votes). And we have "universal" healthcare. So seems to work decently. Even though I understand it is not exactly the same.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding completely your post. I'm tired. I'm leaving work in 30 minutes. I wasn't even suppose to work today.
and in before: THAT IS NOT HOW AMERICA WORKS.
If you had three viable candidates, then you could still end up in the House. No majority vote would be guaranteed by removing the EC. I would argue that US effectively has a pluralistic party system already. Certainly the D's do not represent monolithic thought, with there being a pretty wide chasm between the liberal and moderate wing. They are effectively forced to compromise among themselves to get bills passed by party line votes. Historically the R's have too (although not lately). You had the conservative R's and the Rockefeller R's who dominated the north with liberal social and conservative economic views.
You have the right winged Social Democrats and the left winged Social Democrats too. You have the old Communist-hugging left and the inner city-leftists in The Left Party.
There isn't monolith thought in any party that I know of. Maybe in Russia.
But, how would you do choose to do it? If the vote is split between three candidates and no one has reached 270?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Typical bullshit from you. You cut off the rest of my quote where I say "Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me."
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?
I don't have to do math if all I agree with is the premise that Bloomberg could do a lot of great things with all that money rather than flushing it down the toilet with his "campaign." And while these two on MSNBC seem to think that giving a million dollars to everyone is one of those great things, I think there's many, many others things $550 million dollars can do.
But do you understand what the funny thing about the video and tweet is?
It is not that Bloomberg would never give away a million dollars to every citizen...
-Timothy Burke calling something else stupid?
-MSNBC being critical of Bloomberg's outrageous spending when they, like Bloomberg, are part of the DNC's apparatus to get rid of Trump?
-Your interest in this tweet and what's supposed to be funny about it?
Are one of these three things the funny part?
The horrible, horrible math is the funny part. Embarrassing for someone that probably went to college. But I will gladly take the $1.50 from Bloomberg.
Typical bullshit from you. You cut off the rest of my quote where I say "Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me."
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?
I don't have to do math if all I agree with is the premise that Bloomberg could do a lot of great things with all that money rather than flushing it down the toilet with his "campaign." And while these two on MSNBC seem to think that giving a million dollars to everyone is one of those great things, I think there's many, many others things $550 million dollars can do.
But do you understand what the funny thing about the video and tweet is?
It is not that Bloomberg would never give away a million dollars to every citizen...
-Timothy Burke calling something else stupid?
-MSNBC being critical of Bloomberg's outrageous spending when they, like Bloomberg, are part of the DNC's apparatus to get rid of Trump?
-Your interest in this tweet and what's supposed to be funny about it?
Are one of these three things the funny part?
No. So once again:
(Read the tweet and watch the video again and) Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Typical bullshit from you. You cut off the rest of my quote where I say "Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me."
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?
I don't have to do math if all I agree with is the premise that Bloomberg could do a lot of great things with all that money rather than flushing it down the toilet with his "campaign." And while these two on MSNBC seem to think that giving a million dollars to everyone is one of those great things, I think there's many, many others things $550 million dollars can do.
But do you understand what the funny thing about the video and tweet is?
It is not that Bloomberg would never give away a million dollars to every citizen...
-Timothy Burke calling something else stupid?
-MSNBC being critical of Bloomberg's outrageous spending when they, like Bloomberg, are part of the DNC's apparatus to get rid of Trump?
-Your interest in this tweet and what's supposed to be funny about it?
Are one of these three things the funny part?
No. So once again:
(Read the tweet and watch the video again and) Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.
Alright I'll come clean, I didn't pay much attention to the video on the first watch and didn't rewatch when you first suggested to do the math, rather choosing to defend my "Bloomberg can do more with his money" stance. I have now rewatched it. So yes, to give every American $1 million would come out to about $327 trillion. So I concede, that is pretty funny to air on MSNBC. Apologies to Timothy Burke on this one.
Yeah pretty much. The only state Bernie is projected to win coming up is Washington.
If Biden crushes him next week and the crushes him in Florida the next week, game, set, match.
I'll go further, Bernie needs a decisive Michigan win next week. You have to think Biden wins FL MS and GA pretty cleanly. So a close loss or win for Biden in Michigan could be lights out. States after that are like MO, MD, and even PA. These are great states for Joe.
The horse race doesn't matter. Biden is going to be the nominee. Bernie's candidacy is over. Dems getting buyer's remorse as these primaries march on might not be the worst case scenario but it would be a bad one. .
The horse race doesn't matter. Biden is going to be the nominee. Bernie's candidacy is over. Dems getting buyer's remorse as these primaries march on might not be the worst case scenario but it would be a bad one. .
It's just such a sad system that of all those people that declared themselves to be candidates, the one that's going to emerge has failed in two presidential runs, and is showing major signs of decline. Even sadder is that despite that, he probably does have the best chance to beat Trump.
It seems like the two best ways to become a major party nominee during my lifetime is to be a master politician like Bill Clinton, Obama, and Trump, or to simply hang around for a very long time like Dole, Kerry, McCain, and Hillary. And unfortunately, Biden falls into the second category. Here's hoping he gets a better outcome that than those four did.
The horse race doesn't matter. Biden is going to be the nominee. Bernie's candidacy is over. Dems getting buyer's remorse as these primaries march on might not be the worst case scenario but it would be a bad one. .
It's just such a sad system that of all those people that declared themselves to be candidates, the one that's going to emerge has failed in two presidential runs, and is showing major signs of decline. Even sadder is that despite that, he probably does have the best chance to beat Trump.
It seems like the two best ways to become a major party nominee during my lifetime is to be a master politician like Bill Clinton, Obama, and Trump, or to simply hang around for a very long time like Dole, Kerry, McCain, and Hillary. And unfortunately, Biden falls into the second category. Here's hoping he gets a better outcome that than those four did.
Yeah, I don't know how to fix it but it does feel increasingly like our primary system is one more in a series that is beginning to fail.
Comments
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
like buy a couple arms manufacturers and their patents and shut the fuckers down.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It is not that Bloomberg would never give away a million dollars to every citizen...
-MSNBC being critical of Bloomberg's outrageous spending when they, like Bloomberg, are part of the DNC's apparatus to get rid of Trump?
-Your interest in this tweet and what's supposed to be funny about it?
Are one of these three things the funny part?
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
There isn't monolith thought in any party that I know of. Maybe in Russia.
But, how would you do choose to do it? If the vote is split between three candidates and no one has reached 270?
(Read the tweet and watch the video again and) Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.
Alright I'll come clean, I didn't pay much attention to the video on the first watch and didn't rewatch when you first suggested to do the math, rather choosing to defend my "Bloomberg can do more with his money" stance. I have now rewatched it. So yes, to give every American $1 million would come out to about $327 trillion. So I concede, that is pretty funny to air on MSNBC. Apologies to Timothy Burke on this one.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
It took you quite a while to figure that out man...hahaha
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Funny to see Tulsi still there.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
If Biden crushes him next week and the crushes him in Florida the next week, game, set, match.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It seems like the two best ways to become a major party nominee during my lifetime is to be a master politician like Bill Clinton, Obama, and Trump, or to simply hang around for a very long time like Dole, Kerry, McCain, and Hillary. And unfortunately, Biden falls into the second category. Here's hoping he gets a better outcome that than those four did.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."