The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.Ledbetterman10 said:
I think this is pretty reasonable.Spiritual_Chaos said:Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
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."Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.Ledbetterman10 said:
I think this is pretty reasonable.Spiritual_Chaos said:
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?Ledbetterman10 said:
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."Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.Ledbetterman10 said:
I think this is pretty reasonable.Spiritual_Chaos said:"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?Ledbetterman10 said:
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."Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.Ledbetterman10 said:
I think this is pretty reasonable.Spiritual_Chaos said:
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?Ledbetterman10 said:
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."Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.Ledbetterman10 said:
I think this is pretty reasonable.Spiritual_Chaos said:
like buy a couple arms manufacturers and their patents and shut the fuckers down.....Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?Ledbetterman10 said:
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."Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.Ledbetterman10 said:
I think this is pretty reasonable.Spiritual_Chaos said:
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140 -
But do you understand what the funny thing about the video and tweet is?Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?Ledbetterman10 said:
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."Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.Ledbetterman10 said:
I think this is pretty reasonable.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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"0 -
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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(?)mrussel1 said:
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?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Yes.JimmyV said:
With the House choosing the President?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Fail to see the problem..(?)mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
So what happens?CM189191 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?CM189191 said:
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.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.
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.0 -
By the way, I have no idea how having a parliamentary system leads to universal healthcare. That seems like a non-sequitur.0
-
It all adds up my friend. It all adds up.mrussel1 said:By the way, I have no idea how having a parliamentary system leads to universal healthcare. That seems like a non-sequitur."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
-Timothy Burke calling something else stupid?Spiritual_Chaos said:
But do you understand what the funny thing about the video and tweet is?Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?Ledbetterman10 said:
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."Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.Ledbetterman10 said:
I think this is pretty reasonable.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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(?)mrussel1 said:
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?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Yes.JimmyV said:
With the House choosing the President?Spiritual_Chaos said:
Fail to see the problem..(?)mrussel1 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
So what happens?CM189191 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?CM189191 said:
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.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.
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.
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"0 -
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.Ledbetterman10 said:
-Timothy Burke calling something else stupid?Spiritual_Chaos said:
But do you understand what the funny thing about the video and tweet is?Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?Ledbetterman10 said:
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."Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.Ledbetterman10 said:
I think this is pretty reasonable.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?0 -
No. So once again:Ledbetterman10 said:
-Timothy Burke calling something else stupid?Spiritual_Chaos said:
But do you understand what the funny thing about the video and tweet is?Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?Ledbetterman10 said:
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."Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.Ledbetterman10 said:
I think this is pretty reasonable.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?
(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"0 -
Spiritual_Chaos said:
No. So once again:Ledbetterman10 said:
-Timothy Burke calling something else stupid?Spiritual_Chaos said:
But do you understand what the funny thing about the video and tweet is?Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Spiritual_Chaos said:
The rest of your post does not dispute not having done the math relating to the tweet/video?Ledbetterman10 said:
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."Spiritual_Chaos said:
Do the math. Like a Yang Ganger.Ledbetterman10 said:
I think this is pretty reasonable.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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?
(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.
Post edited by Ledbetterman10 on2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
@Spiritual_Chaos Well I'm still laughing about this. I really should have just rewatched the video the first time.2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
lol, so many people are bad at math, especially with all the devices to do it for us now. I forgive them because that includes me.
Falling down,...not staying down0 -
hahaLedbetterman10 said:@Spiritual_Chaos Well I'm still laughing about this. I really should have just rewatched the video the first time.
It took you quite a while to figure that out man...hahahawww.myspace.com0 -
I just have to accept your ridicule on this one.The Juggler said:
hahaLedbetterman10 said:@Spiritual_Chaos Well I'm still laughing about this. I really should have just rewatched the video the first time.
It took you quite a while to figure that out man...hahaha
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help