Bloombergs gonna run folks. how does that change things

Darla said:
It’s kind of shocking that the mayor of NYC, where support for this war runs about neck and neck with support for bleeding hemorrhoids, would have that position. Republicans defy all logic. Paul Krugman wrote a piece about just this today. About how if you look at the positions of the top Republicans running for President, save Huckabee on economics, they completely defy not only logic but public sentiment and approval. And he makes the case that it’s because movement conservatism calls all of the shots in that party, and they drop to their knees when they are told to by such scumbags as Grover Norquist on economic policy, and they say yes sir what do you want me to say today sir. And the same on the war. There is no such thing as a moderate republican, because they all get owned, by the movement masters.

And the only way they can get elected in a general is through a mixture of election fraud and fear of terrorists.
Click to expand...

Oh my, I never thought I would say this but thank you Paul Krugman. As disillusioned as I have been by the Republicans that column actually made me feel better about them. Krugman makes it quite clear his dislike and distrust of free market economics and much that is associated with it. (I will say I find it quite humorous his implications that issues such as lower taxes are 'Bush economics' as if he was the first to promote such policies.) The day Krugman supports the Republican economic policies (such seemed to be his implication with Huckabee) is the day I quit following politics.
 
Desh said:
They are not campaigning for the support of the majority of Americans. They are campaigning for the support of the people who hold the keys to our fixed elections. They cant win in a democracy so they have done other things over the years to avoid having to win a majority vote.
Click to expand...

Desh, you have yet to show how Reagan stole the 49 states he won while espousing freer markets, less governent interference in the marketplace etc.
 
LadyT said:
How was your Christmas break?~ I haven't seen you online all week!
Click to expand...

It was great Tiana, and I had such a nice, relaxing and happy time, that I decided to take Christmas week off from here and from anti-war activities too. No need to bring the ugliness of war and death into my holiday every year. After all, the vast majority of Americans couldn’t possibly care any less, and I felt like a merry respite and enjoyed it too. How was yours?
 
Darla said:
It was great Tiana, and I had such a nice, relaxing and happy time, that I decided to take Christmas week off from here and from anti-war activities too. No need to bring the ugliness of war and death into my holiday every year. After all, the vast majority of Americans couldn’t possibly care any less, and I felt like a merry respite and enjoyed it too. How was yours?
Click to expand...

It pretty cool. Busy but pretty cool. I went to DC, South Jersey, Delaware and PA to visit family and friends over the span of 4 days. I was exhausted by the time Christmas actually came and was looking forward to getting some rest at the office this week~! I got a gorgeous bracelet so I was happy.
 
cawacko said:
Oh my, I never thought I would say this but thank you Paul Krugman. As disillusioned as I have been by the Republicans that column actually made me feel better about them. Krugman makes it quite clear his dislike and distrust of free market economics and much that is associated with it. (I will say I find it quite humorous his implications that issues such as lower taxes are 'Bush economics' as if he was the first to promote such policies.) The day Krugman supports the Republican economic policies (such seemed to be his implication with Huckabee) is the day I quit following politics.
Click to expand...

Yes that’s right Cawacko. Paul Krugman is against free markets. He’s a communist. It couldn’t be that your party has moved so far to the right that they make economic moderates look like lefties. You hold onto that. Hold on tight. You’ll be needing that.
 
Chapdog said:
i think allot will depend on his running mate. wonder who would fit for that role
Click to expand...

My guess is Hagel, maybe Richardson.... if he is smart, he will wait until Hillary announces her running mate. If she shuns Wesley Clark he should pick him up as his VP.
 
Darla said:
Yes that’s right Cawacko. Paul Krugman is against free markets. He’s a communist. It couldn’t be that your party has moved so far to the right that they make economic moderates look like lefties. You hold onto that. Hold on tight. You’ll be needing that.
Click to expand...

No, there is actually actually something in between unregulated laizze-faire (sp) economics and communism. Notice I did not call Krugman a communist. But the politicies he support and espouse are a serious watered down version of market capitalism with a strong ode to the nanny state.

Free markets, protection of property rights and the rule of law have brought the highest living standards across the globe. That has been show clearly over the past century across the globe. I wish both Republicans and Democrats both fully supported that. At the current time I believe the Republican Party comes closest thus my support for them.
 
Dungheap said:
The polls that I have seen that have included Bloomberg indicate that he would pull minor support from both parties but more from the Republicans than Democrats, which is to be expected considering he was a Republican.

My sense is that Bloomberg tends to get support from centrist Republicans that are sick and tired of the disaster that the national GOP has become under Bush's stewardship but that don't necessarily want to vote for a Democrat.
Click to expand...

you forget, prior to 2001, he was a Dem. I think he pulls from both parties middle. If it ends up being Hillary for the Dems and Rudy or Huckabee for the Reps, Bloomberg could pull enough to win.
 
LadyT said:
http://www.nysun.com/article/51396

Nevermind.

"Mayor Bloomberg is inserting himself into the central debate of the 2008 presidential campaign, casting the legislation Democrats are backing in Congress to set a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq as irresponsible."
Click to expand...

Just because he understands setting an arbitrary timetable is irresponsible, does not mean he would not work to end the war as quickly as possible.
 
Superfreak said:
you forget, prior to 2001, he was a Dem. I think he pulls from both parties middle. If it ends up being Hillary for the Dems and Rudy or Huckabee for the Reps, Bloomberg could pull enough to win.
Click to expand...

I think you're right that he pulls from the Dems as much, maybe more, as the repubs.

I think you're wrong that Bloomberg could win. I only hear the chattering classes inside the beltway, and on the intertubes, bloviating and salivating over bloomberg. I haven't heard any Joe Lunch Pails, or average Janes clamouring for a short billionaire from new york to rescue us.
 
Darla said:
Yes that’s right Cawacko. Paul Krugman is against free markets. He’s a communist. It couldn’t be that your party has moved so far to the right that they make economic moderates look like lefties. You hold onto that. Hold on tight. You’ll be needing that.
Click to expand...

Darla, quite the opposite has occured with regards to economics from our politicians. Both parties have moved to the LEFT, not right, over the past four decades. That is why we get the great and wonderful arguments about who screws us fiscally more than the other. There has not been an economic moderate combination of Congress/White House since Ike was President.

As for Krugman, no, he is not a communist. But he is without question to the left on economic issues.
 
Cypress said:
I think you're right that he pulls from the Dems as much, maybe more, as the repubs.

I think you're wrong that Bloomberg could win. I only hear the chattering classes inside the beltway, and on the intertubes, bloviating and salivating over bloomberg. I haven't heard any Joe Lunch Pails, or average Janes clamouring for a short billionaire from new york to rescue us.
Click to expand...

Though the group might be small it is possible that he pulls from those fed up with both parties and either would not have voted or voted third party.
 
Superfreak said:
Darla, quite the opposite has occured with regards to economics from our politicians. Both parties have moved to the LEFT, not right, over the past four decades. That is why we get the great and wonderful arguments about who screws us fiscally more than the other. There has not been an economic moderate combination of Congress/White House since Ike was President.

As for Krugman, no, he is not a communist. But he is without question to the left on economic issues.
Click to expand...

Oh give me a break, would you guys? Get your head out of Tom Friedman’s ass, and wake up. As if it would have been possible to fuck the American worker with globalization and NAFTA, 30 years ago. Please, if you want to peddle bullshit that’s your thing, go do it, but don’t expect me to swallow it. I actually have my eyes open.
As for Krugman, is Paul Krugman anti-globalization and anti-free market? Is he, yes or no SF? Because all of this emoting on the part of you and Cawacko about your feelings, is very entertaining, but that’s the bottom line. Yes, or no?
 
Darla said:
Oh give me a break, would you guys? Get your head out of Tom Friedman’s ass, and wake up. As if it would have been possible to fuck the American worker with globalization and NAFTA, 30 years ago. Please, if you want to peddle bullshit that’s your thing, go do it, but don’t expect me to swallow it. I actually have my eyes open.
As for Krugman, is Paul Krugman anti-globalization and anti-free market? Is he, yes or no SF? Because all of this emoting on the part of you and Cawacko about your feelings, is very entertaining, but that’s the bottom line. Yes, or no?
Click to expand...

Who said he was or was not anti-globalization? and quit with your strawman... I don't agree with Friedman on everything either.

By the way....being left on economics does not mean a person is necessarily anti-globalization. But he is without question left on economics when it comes to government regulation and interference.

And no, you do not have your "eyes open" on this issue. You have shown time and again that you blindly follow Krugman.
 
Superfreak said:
Who said he was or was not anti-globalization? and quit with your strawman... I don't agree with Friedman on everything either.

By the way....being left on economics does not mean a person is necessarily anti-globalization. But he is without question left on economics when it comes to government regulation and interference.

And no, you do not have your "eyes open" on this issue. You have shown time and again that you blindly follow Krugman.
Click to expand...

LOL

Yeah.

Uh, Cawacko mentioned it. He said Krugman was frightened by the free market. I’d like to know when Paul Krugman came out against free markets or globalization. But of course he never has, so that’s why no one can show me.
As for blindly following Krugman, what happened in this country and within the republican party economically, happened long before I ever heard of Krugman, and I already knew about it then. Maybe it’s because I’m a working girl. And under no illusions that I’m going to enter the top 1% in my lifetime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top