Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members
5 minutes ago, Khan said:

Carville makes a good point: even if Bernie Sanders were to win the presidency, he'd never be able to help the Democrats reclaim the Senate.  Which means, with Mitch McConnell still there as Senate Majority Leader, we'd still be dead in the water.

 

I don't even think Bernie wants Democrats to have the Senate. Or the House. I think he'd rather just have rallies, like Trump.

 

I can't really speak on Bloomberg as I haven't lived in New York. All I know is he can't be as bad as Bernie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    5129

  • Khan

    3063

  • DRW50

    5104

  • DramatistDreamer

    4811

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members
26 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I don't even think Bernie wants Democrats to have the Senate. Or the House. I think he'd rather just have rallies, like Trump.

 

Yup.  So he can keep telling everyone about the revolution.  Like the grimy old man who stands at the subway station and warns everyone of the Second Coming.

 

Three other good points, courtesy of Carville:

 

[Buttigieg] has to demonstrate over the course of a campaign that he can excite and motivate arguably the most important constituents in the Democratic Party: African Americans. These voters are a hell of a lot more important than a bunch of 25-year-olds shouting everyone down on Twitter.

 

1. Yes, African-Americans (and African-American women, in particular) have become the very backbone of the Democratic Party.  The other candidates wouldn't even address it at the New Hampshire debate until Tom Steyer did.

 

2. Yes, how we vote is way more important than "a bunch of 25-year-olds shouting everyone down on Twitter."  And if you don't believe it now, believe it if/when their guy becomes the nominee and loses the election, because African-Americans wouldn't come out strong for him.

 

3. Yes, that (appealing to African-Americans) is the one blindspot Pete Buttigieg will have to overcome if he wants to defeat Trump and take the WH.  As I've said in the past, I don't believe Buttigieg is flagrantly racist.  But, he's a limousine liberal.  He doesn't know how to put himself inside our shoes and view this country the way we do.

 

26 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I can't really speak on Bloomberg as I haven't lived in New York. All I know is he can't be as bad as Bernie.

 

Well, no one is as bad as Bernie Sanders (or Donald Trump).

 

The one thing I remember most about Mike Bloomberg from my time in NYC was the implementation of stop-and-frisk, as well as the outrage and grief it stirred up among many communities.  Of course, Bloomberg has since apologized for signing off on the policy.  Nevertheless, things like that can leave a bad taste in voters' mouths.

 

I also remember people accusing Bloomberg of creating a "nanny state" with the reduction or elimination of many sugary beverages, and the demand for fast-food and other restaurants to begin printing the number of calories in each dish for consumers.  (There was also some brouhaha over the passage of some ordinance that outlawed smoking outside public buildings?  I didn't pay close enough attention, so I might have that wrong).  Even today, that type of legislation seems a bit...intrusive.  But, I get where Bloomberg was coming from.  Obesity, and the diseases that stem from it, isn't just an epidemic.  It's a public health crisis that continues to put enormous strains on our hospitals and healthcare industries, among other places; and it needs to be treated as such.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
20 minutes ago, Khan said:

 

 

 

I also remember people accusing Bloomberg of creating a "nanny state" with the reduction or elimination of many sugary beverages, and the demand for fast-food and other restaurants to begin printing the number of calories in each dish for consumers.  (There was also some brouhaha over the passage of some ordinance that outlawed smoking outside public buildings?  I didn't pay close enough attention, so I might have that wrong).  Even today, that type of legislation seems a bit...excessive.  But, I get where Bloomberg was coming from.  Obesity isn't just an epidemic.  It's a public health crisis that continues to put enormous strains on our hospitals and healthcare industries, and it needs to be treated as such.

That did annoy me at first, but I have to admit it changed the way I eat at restaurants.  When you see those numbers staring back at you it can be hard to justify eating some of that stuff. Some of the soup at Panera is nearly 800 calories for pity's sake.

 

None of that is here nor there though. I would absolutely vote for Bloomberg if he's the nominee. It would disgust me to have another billionaire president, but so be it, I'll take him over Bernie.

Edited by Juliajms
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
29 minutes ago, Juliajms said:

It would disgust me to have another billionaire president, but so be it, I'll take him over Bernie.

 

As I see it, only a billionaire like Mike Bloomberg can take on Donald Trump and conceivably win.  Not that he would be GUARANTEED to win, but I think he'd stand a much better chance of doing so than even Joe Biden. 

 

I can't say this often enough: when it comes to politics or anything else in this country, the only way to fight money is WITH money.  (To put it another way: "Outwit, Outlast, OUTSPEND.")  All those catchy messages and finely tuned agendas don't mean squat if you don't have the financial means to put them into the voters' consciousness.  Even Pete Buttigieg understands that!

 

Now, there are those who insist that all Bloomberg's doing is buying the nomination.  To them, I say:

 

1. I think the rules stopped applying the day the DNC decided to allow Bernie Sanders, who has never identified himself as a Democrat, to run within their party.

 

2. WHO. CARES.  We HAVE to get rid of Trump.  Like James Carville said, this is our moral imperative.  The fate of the world rests on the Democrats beating him and the rest of the GOP this November.  If that means allowing Mike Bloomberg to parachute his way in like GL's Alan-Michael Spaulding at the Bauer BBQ, so be it.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Khan said:

2. WHO. CARES.  We HAVE to get rid of Trump.  Like James Carville said, this is our moral imperative.  The fate of the world rests on the Democrats beating him and the rest of the GOP this November.  If that means allowing Mike Bloomberg to parachute his way in like GL's Alan-Michael Spaulding at the Bauer BBQ, so be it.

 

This. SO. MUCH. FREAKING. THIS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In the meantime talking about money, Bernies  Our Revolution behaves like one and seems to fall under the radar. Who knows who donates including foreign influence.

 

https://apnews.com/345bbd1af529cfb1e41305fa3ab1e604

 

Could you imagine what Bernie Sanders supporters would have done to FDR who was himself a rich elitist or the Kennedy family?

 

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, marceline said:

Joe is my guy but I'm fine with Bloomberg spending the money. The purity progs are obsessed with trying to police everybody's funding. What Bloomberg is doing is showing us what would be possible if we had the cash that Republicans do.

 

Exactly.

 

When I complained on FB that Mike Bloomberg was wasting money on a "vanity campaign" that should go toward boosting another, more viable, Democratic candidate, a friend of a friend and former high school classmate of mine made an excellent point that ultimately made me rethink Bloomberg's value to the race.  (I'm so easily persuadable).

 

He wrote:

 

[His friend] thinks Bloomberg is trying to get enough Super Tuesday delegates so that if we go into the convention without a single candidate having enough delegates to win, he can throw his delegates to whichever establishment candidate [...] is in the lead so they can get the nomination.

 

I'm with my friend/former high school classmate.  It isn't a bad theory.

 

Nor is THIS theory from his identical twin brother, who chimed in with this later that day:

 

I think [Bloomberg] is running just so he can more easily spend his money where he wants to in attacking Trump. As a candidate, he can spend his own money however he likes. There are still limits for individual giving, so he couldn’t just give a blank check to another campaign. Now, he could form a Super PAC, but then he wouldn’t get the earned media opportunities he does as a candidate.

He has committed to paying his staff through the general election to work for whomever gets the nomination. I have to think he is sincere in his desire to make [Donald] Trump a one-term president. Also consider that a lot of his ads are attacking Trump. This early, you would normally be focused on winning primaries, but his ads seem more general election focused to me.

 

Whether or not Bloomberg gets the nomination, I have to believe he (and his money) can be a valuable asset toward beating Trump in the election.  To suggest we can do this without Bloomberg's kind of money -- as if all we need are a few, good, well-organized bake sales or something -- is foolish.

 

59 minutes ago, JaneAusten said:

Could you imagine what Bernie Sanders supporters would have done to FDR who was himself a rich elitist or the Kennedy family?

 

If FDR or JFK were running today for president, the Berners and other far-left progressives would eat them for lunch.  Heck, even Abe Lincoln would've been toast on Twitter.  That's the "magic" of social media in the 21st century, I guess, lol.

 

On the other hand, if the Berners had been around in the 1930's, they wouldn't get very far with their "REVOLUTION NOW!" jive, because the media of the day would have dismissed them as the fringe group they truly are.  They wouldn't pose anywhere near the kind of threat to the Democratic Party that they do today.

 

You know, at some point, we're all going to have to sit down and have a real conversation about what to do about the use of the internet and social media in this country.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Is it me, or whoever told Biden to remain quiet on the whole Ukraine mess, should be fired? Where is fighting Joe? I mean if you’re not going to defend your family name, or your only son what makes people think you will defend us? Shame I was going to vote for Biden but........!  Voters are wary and prolly don't wanna deja vu of the Clinton emails!

 
🤨
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
23 minutes ago, rlj said:

Is it me, or whoever told Biden to remain quiet on the whole Ukraine mess, should be fired? Where is fighting Joe? I mean if you’re not going to defend your family name, or your only son what makes people think you will defend us? Shame I was going to vote for Biden but........!  

 
🤨

That's what my folks have been saying too. Biden is very weak. Bloomberg is already running ads with him and Obama in my state for super Tuesday. Biden has fallen asleep at the wheel. 

Edited by Soapsuds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
42 minutes ago, rlj said:

Is it me, or whoever told Biden to remain quiet on the whole Ukraine mess, should be fired? Where is fighting Joe? I mean if you’re not going to defend your family name, or your only son what makes people think you will defend us? Shame I was going to vote for Biden but........!  Voters are wary and prolly don't wanna deja vu of the Clinton emails!

 
🤨

 

Ukraine is Russian propaganda. Clinton's emails were Russian propaganda. When are Democrats going to stop falling for propaganda? Trump wants the conversation to be about Hunter Biden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 hours ago, Khan said:

 

Now, there are those who insist that all Bloomberg's doing is buying the nomination.  To them, I say:

 

1. I think the rules stopped applying the day the DNC decided to allow Bernie Sanders, who has never identified himself as a Democrat, to run within their party.

 

2. WHO. CARES.  We HAVE to get rid of Trump.  Like James Carville said, this is our moral imperative.  The fate of the world rests on the Democrats beating him and the rest of the GOP this November.  If that means allowing Mike Bloomberg to parachute his way in like GL's Alan-Michael Spaulding at the Bauer BBQ, so be it.

 

Agreed 1000% 

 

I love me some Michelle Obama, but the whole "when they go low, we go high" approach is not working! We are living in a different era now, and by going the high road in the political field, we are getting our asses raped day in and day out. It's time to fight dirty or else we'll drown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Bloomberg is racist is currently the #2 trending topic on Twitter. Can't say that I'm surprised, it was bound to happen.

Oh yeah, NH totally deserves their place as holding the first primary in the nation. (*sarcasm*)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
46 minutes ago, marceline said:

. I can't say his complete silence on the matter hasn't Hurt him in Iowa and prolly NH!

Ukraine is Russian propaganda. Clinton's emails were Russian propaganda. When are Democrats going to stop falling for propaganda? Trump wants the conversation to be about Hunter Biden.

I know that, and I'm not saying he should respond to all the bs, but say something!  I can't say his complete silence on the matter hasn't hurt him in Iowa and prolly NH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, marceline said:

Ukraine is Russian propaganda. Clinton's emails were Russian propaganda. When are Democrats going to stop falling for propaganda? Trump wants the conversation to be about Hunter Biden.

 

Precisely.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the Republicans are in power, not because they're so smart, but because the Democrats are so gullible.  I figured that out when the "pure" ones from within the Democratic Party drove Al Franken out of the Senate, thereby costing us an important ally in the pushback against the Trump administration.

 

But, on the other hand...

 

I'm not sure anymore whether Ukraine matters all that much to potential voters, @rlj, but your comments above articulate Joe Biden's no-win situation in regards to Hunter and Hunter's connection to Burisma.  If Biden addresses the issue at all, then he's just giving more oxygen to all the (debunked) conspiracies and conspiracy theories.  But, if he doesn't, then he's seen as weak for not defending himself AND his son against accusations of corruption.  Again, a no-win situation.

 

I'll admit I was worried that the Senate would convince Hunter and/or Joe Biden to testify during the impeachment hearings, because I believed no good would come from it.  Joe, in particular, has a tendency to shoot himself in the proverbial foot.  I was worried the GOP would exploit that weakness, using his own words against him, and killing whatever chance he still has of winning the nomination.

 

In the end, I guess, it really doesn't matter: by bringing it up at all, the GOP has made Ukraine an issue for Joe Biden, regardless of its' validity.  My advice to all Democratic and Independent voters?  Whether or not Biden addresses the matter, realize it's precisely that kind of propaganda that has brought us to this moment.  Learn from our mistakes of four years ago.  Look past what is clearly another smear tactic on the part of the GOP, and vote for Biden (should he land the nomination).  The very fate of this nation rests on our ability NOT to make the same, stupid mistakes twice.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Recent Posts

    • The budget of the 6-hour 1983 mini-series, 'Return To Eden' was $2.5 million - "the largest of any series made in Australia (at that time) and channel Ten has paid the highest price to screen it." In 1984, producer Hal McElroy sold 'Return To Eden' to Worldvision and Paramount for international distribution for close to $4 million. In 1985, the mini-series was turned into a weekly series, budgeted at $8 million. 'Return To Eden' the series was then pre-sold to the U.S. and U.K. markets before it went on air in Australia.   Daniel Abineri appeared in the 22 episodes observed, "I think they really go for all that 'Dynasty' stuff in Britain and 'Return To Eden' was just like 'Dynasty.'" When it was shown in the U.S. in September 1985, "some American audiences have viewed 'Return To Eden' and reaction has been highly favorable." Hal McElroy maintained, "We didn't set out to make 'Dynasty' or 'Dallas' per se. We could never emulate them, because they spend $1 million an hour - 4 or 5 times more than we have to spend. But it's prime time, adult-oriented melodrama, so, necessarily, it will have the same sort of qualities."   The playground of the high-living super rich and multi-million dollar mining empire did not appeal to many Australians. Ratings in Australia for the weekly series were lackluster. However 'Return To Eden' "has been immensely successful overseas, especially in Britain." Wardrobe supervisor Miv Brewer believed, "In 'Return To Eden' we have the ideal vehicle to put real glamor on Australian television. It also gives us the opportunity to expose some of our talented young designers who are well and truly up to the standard of Europe's best."    Casting director Liz Mullinar picked Peta Toppano to play Jilly. Peta made known, "I incorporated my fiery Italian background into the role. I never really watched 'Dynasty' very much and I don't watch 'Sons and Daughters' so I wasn't drawing from anything. Jilly's my invention. I didn't think ... 'I'll take a bit of Joan Collins, a bit of Pat the Rat and a bit of this one and that one,' because I don't watch them. The wonderful thing about playing Jilly is that nobody recognizes me from 'Return To Eden'. In the show I had bright red hair, high heels and slinky dresses. At home I wear jeans and T-shirts. I've never done anything as glamorous as this before. I'd arrive at the studio in a track suit and by 6:00am I'd be decked out in tiaras and sequins."   Daniel Abineri remembered, "About halfway through it got really silly, and, for an actor, as soon as you can't take something seriously it becomes very hard to play it with a straight face. Keeping a straight face for the last 10 episodes of 'Return To Eden' was unbelievably hard for all of us on the show. We were getting the scripts a day or 2 before shooting and pearls of laughter would ring out from all the actors."    Of the scenes in the final episode, "I wanted to die with a smile on my face but they wouldn't let me. They really worried that I never had it done up tight like a real business tycoon. So, just for a little revenge, I had a scene where I had to throw Jilly around the bedroom and my tie came loose. I made a point of staring right down the lens of the camera and straightening my tie. The producers were cool though. They knew what I was up to. They put a big dramatic, orchestral sting in, a big 'bu-bomp' just as I straightened my tie - made it much more dramatic." Peta confessed, "I wanted this role more than anything in the world. I think people will be surprised and my mother will have a heart attack!" Out of jail and hellbent on revenge, Jilly re-entered the life of Harper Mining shareholder Phillip Stewart (played by John Lee). Peta recounted, "Jilly's been stringing Phillip along like a fish on a line for a while now. She's been manipulating him and conning him and telling him how much she loves him, how much she's changed and how trustworthy she's going to be from now on. "Yet all the time she's been seeing Jake, sleeping with him, and then coming home to Phillip and telling him what a wonderful man he is! He really loves her but she's playing this double-handed game and deceiving Phillip right down the line - destroying him. I think she hates him; she despises him for being weak and loving her so much. She sees Phillip as somebody to step on and destroy. He's just a pawn in her masterplan to get everything that Stephanie Harper (played by Rebecca Gilling) has. "Jilly marries Phillip for the money and the power. She also marries him to get back on the social ladder again because she is hurt at having been ostracized by both his family and friends and by the Harpers. She sees her marriage to Phillip as a way back into the money and social sphere she used to know. I'm starting to find out who Jilly is and delving into areas of my own personality I feel are appropriate for her. I think there's a bit of Jilly in every woman. For Jilly I'm calling on a side of myself I've never had to call upon as an actress before - it's a side of me that I don't like. I have been typecast as a sweet, girl-next-door type. That's why I was so grateful to be given the chance to play a conniving character."
    • RHONY got toxic in its third season and went really hardcore in S4. The thing about RHONY was that most of the women were legit friends in S1-S3. Ramona and Jill knew each other for at least a decade, Jill and Luann got close, Jill and Bethenny got REALLY close, Ramona and Sonja were longtime pals. The fact that these were real relationships resonated -- although that is not to say that Jill Zarin and others weren't strategizing and self-producing for the show, trying to win the audience on their side, because they were. It's why their RL relationships couldn't be sustained, because Jill was briefing Page Six against Ramona, and vice versa. With SLC, as Meredith referred to Jennie in her statement, these are 'co-workers.' The toxicity feels different as a result, and this has an impact on our investment in this cast.
    • Well, I liked it. The pilot was a lot of set-up though and they sent out the first two episodes to critics (episode 2 is also getting an early premiere on Hulu today), so I assume they feel a lot better about episode 2. Also, what is it with gay boys always siding with their villainous mother?
  • On Soap Opera Network

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy