Jump to content

Independent/Third Party 2020 Presidential Candidate "Mega"thread

bad_teammate

By bad_teammate
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)

It’s hard to define centrism when conservative and liberal are equally challenging to define in today’s political climate.

I agree that the idea of a true centrist is like a unicorn.  They sound pretty in theory but they don’t really exist.  

On the old board I brainstormed what a centrist platform would look like and it was admittedly a failed experiment.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 33238

Posted
Posted

Centrism quite literally can't be an independent ideology or philosophy as the entire premise is that you let other ideologies and philosophies define what you believe. You have to look at what two opposing sides believe and try to pick something in between them.

By definition it isn't a belief system. It can at best be merely a construct based on actual belief systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bojack

Bojack 2082

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Skinny Tie said:

Hillary Clinton had an opposition campaign run against her for over 25+ years by the GOP. Quit saying stupid shit like “she was a bad candidate” and runoff into the woods.

It's hardly fair, but it is part of the reason she was a bad candidate.  It's true that millions of people dislike her but can't really even say why. 

She's never been well loved on the left because she's a political weather vane that's done some dumb shit like vote for the Iraq war.

Also, most any other candidate, especially any woman, would've been able to end Trump after the pussy grabber audio.  Trump was able to counter that somewhat by parading Bill's accusers before that debate.  I hope they're not even at the 2020 convention.  We'll be better off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13234

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Pancho Negro said:

OK, I started at 16 minutes in. Joe asks him HOW he's going to bring in Mitch and Nancy to figure things out, and his answer is Donald Trump's...

The. Best. People.

This man's answer is, "I don't have any ideas, policy, or vision, I'm going to delegate all that to The. Best. People."

more specifically, 

"Get pharma in the room. Get private enterprise in the room, and realize we all have skin in the game."

20 seconds later, he talks about how pharma has too much special interest power.

And, of course, lumping in TEACHER'S UNIONS with pharma and the NRA is amazing.

-----
Joe Scarborough: "So how are you going to get these two sides to agree to your third way compromise (that doesn't exist)?"

Howard Schultz: "As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden."
-----
 

 

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Anastasis said:

No he's very loathingly self aware.  That's why as the board's most vocal democratic socialist, posting from behind the walls of his gated community, he projects onto everyone else a lack of political principles and core values. 

No need to live in a gated community when you live in Piney Point, especially with Memorial Villages PD patrolling to keep the riff raff away. Loved the signs posted by MVPD after HARVEY basically saying no trespassing but on public streets. I always get a chuckle thinking about bad teammate being this avowed socialist while living in Piney Point. bad teammate can you care to share how old are you and what you do for a living? Do you own your home in Piney Point? The cheapest homes there start at over $1.2 million. Either you are doing very well for yourself financially or you are a young, idealistic guy still living at your parents. Which is it? 

Back to Schultz, he is trying to appeal to the Tanglewood, Memorial, TX-7 formerly rock solid Republican that voted Lizzie Fletcher this time. Doctors, lawyers, financial professionals, etc and the well off stay at home Pilates moms. The problem for him is at least with respect to men in that group, we will feign disgust with Trump and never admit to supporting him in polite company but if it comes down to Trump or Sanders, Warren or Harris we will vote Trump 

Edited by Iconoclast Texan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29449

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

OK, I started at 16 minutes in. Joe asks him HOW he's going to bring in Mitch and Nancy to figure things out, and his answer is Donald Trump's...

The. Best. People.

This man's answer is, "I don't have any ideas, policy, or vision, I'm going to delegate all that to The. Best. People."

more specifically, 

"Get pharma in the room. Get private enterprise in the room, and realize we all have skin in the game."

20 seconds later, he talks about how pharma has too much special interest power.

And, of course, lumping in TEACHER'S UNIONS with pharma and the NRA is amazing.

-----
Joe Scarborough: "So how are you going to get these two sides to agree to your third way compromise (that doesn't exist)?"

Howard Schultz: "As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden."
-----
 

 

He might be dumber than Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28913

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

CEO types are used to rooms where they assemble the best people who tell them what they'd like to hear. A bit different when it's groups who don't want or need to kiss your ass. 

Maybe someone from middle-management then? Better yet, get a really talented Project Manager.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13234

Posted
  • Author
Posted
21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He might be dumber than Trump.

Trump knows how to read a room and understand at least some of the internal dynamics of humans that are not him.

Trump knows enough to lie about being a policy expert; he knows that it's important to be knowledgeable.

I don't know if it's as simple as "dumber", but I cannot disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85662

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, mdmost said:

CEO types are used to rooms where they assemble the best people who tell them what they'd like to hear. A bit different when it's groups who don't want or need to kiss your ass. 

Have you seen Trump's cabinet meetings?

It's the dumbest people who think they're the best at what they do kissing his ass and tell him what he'd like to hear.

We'd get the same thing under Schultz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

mister-gotcha-4-9faefa.png?auto=compress

(full comic)

I'm happy to talk about myself and my status as a bourgeois pig, but it's not terribly relevant.

Please do talk about yourself and your background. It would give me a better idea as to your political world view. FondrenRoad gave you shit about not living in Houston proper and not walking the walk with what you say. I would like to know more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13234

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Go read the thread you're talking about. It's all there, bud. I'll put it in a spoiler b/c it's boring and no one cares except you who thinks you're going to find some kind of righteous own in reading about someone's successful life.

I live in Piney Point Village, which is an extremely wealthy suburb established in the 1950s as part of white flight in the Civil Rights Era. In that regard, it was extremely successful. I own my home and have for a long time. I have a lot of money already and make more money (especially combined with my wife's income) than any person really needs to make for any reasonable purpose.

As for not walking the walk, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I donate to causes, support the DSA, and organize for the Democratic party around my area. I have done this for a long time. I pay all the taxes I owe and would happily pay more if they were raised. There is nothing I would want imposed on others that I would not take on myself with regard to political and economic change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13234

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

When people say things like, "I pay all the taxes I owe and would happily pay more if they were raised." what is stopping them from paying more to the government, anyways?

Nothing.

Quote

Just because you aren't legally required to pay more, doesn't mean you can't, especially if your stated goal was that you'd "happily" pay more if only it were legally required of you. Why wait until there is a law to do so? 

Because I don't want to spend more in taxes simply to fund the government in general, I have specific policy desires that would require increased revenue.

Beyond that, no meaningful social program is based simply on the charity of the elite. Charity already exists outside of government effort.

What would me liquidating all of my assets and giving them to "the government" (whatever you think you mean by that) accomplish with regard to any policy goal I have?

You're an idiot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13234

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

All you said was you would be happy to pay more if they were raised, there was no condition on which that raise would occur leaving a reasonable assumption to be made that you would be, today on 2/1, be happy to pay more in taxes for today's policies and programs that need revenue.

What about the sentence that followed that sentence, the one in which I specifically mention "with regard to political and economic change"? How about that?

Quote

Sorry you didn't fully explain yourself. It was either that or you are a liar.

There's nothing confusing about this:

I pay all the taxes I owe and would happily pay more if they were raised. There is nothing I would want imposed on others that I would not take on myself with regard to political and economic change.

Even without that sentence, anyone with two brain cells to rub together could figure out the point. I think even Iconoclast could figure that out pretty easily. 

You are extremely fucking stupid. It's kind of impressive how you manage to be so consistently dumb.

Speaking of, Cookie has spent the last few days in furious defense of someone that America fucking hates because he thinks that this dead-eyed sociopath billionaire represents some mythical "center".

Good job, Cookie, you're killing it out here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28825

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

A week ago I didn't know who Howard Schultz was. Now I know he's a complete fucking tool. 

Hey! Bill Maher made the same observation about Schultz on Real Time last night (except he called him an asshole).

He also joked that his running mate would be a Norah Jones CD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Go read the thread you're talking about. It's all there, bud. I'll put it in a spoiler b/c it's boring and no one cares except you who thinks you're going to find some kind of righteous own in reading about someone's successful life.

 

  Hide contents

I live in Piney Point Village, which is an extremely wealthy suburb established in the 1950s as part of white flight in the Civil Rights Era. In that regard, it was extremely successful. I own my home and have for a long time. I have a lot of money already and make more money (especially combined with my wife's income) than any person really needs to make for any reasonable purpose.

As for not walking the walk, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I donate to causes, support the DSA, and organize for the Democratic party around my area. I have done this for a long time. I pay all the taxes I owe and would happily pay more if they were raised. There is nothing I would want imposed on others that I would not take on myself with regard to political and economic change.

 

I didn’t remember the thread so thanks for the info. Mazel Tov on your success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted (edited)

I’m with cookie on wanting the least amount of interference by the gorvernment in my life as possible. Yes, I understand that government is needed and necessary for a host of reasons. I don’t want it anywhere near healthcare through single payer. I bought a building more than 6 months ago. Unfortunately, the tenant is the government. They still haven’t paid me rent directly despite jumping through all of their bureaucratic hoops. I don’t want that bureaucracy and incompetence anywhere near life and death issues like healthcare.

What I don’t get it is how bad teammate, Fozz, and their ilk can ignore the fundamental differences between this country and the social democratic countries like they like to hold up. The ethos of being an American is an idealization of rugged individualism, pulling up yourself by the bootstraps and a history other than the New Deal and Progressive Eras one of an aversion to massive government regulation. I mentioned above that if progressives want wins on healthcare with a public option they need to have a plan to halt illegal immigration. I’m saying this not because I hate brown people, but because I am a student of history where we have seen the expansion of the welfare state with the Great Society was met with the Republican victories by appealing to the silent majority with the Southern Strategy. Blacks were fucked over by shit like redlining. To think that race no longer has an impact on policy like it did then is naive. We are not a country like those in Scandinavia and Northern Europe with a much greater sense of communal responsibility. bad teammate you can wish we were like that but we aren’t and that’s why all the comparisons with those countries and citing OECD stats means jack shit in the real world. I wish Iran rid itself of the scourge of Islam and I wish Texas didn’t have as many Baptists so we can have gambling. That’s not reality unfortunately and neither is your wish of this country ever being democratic socialist.

Edited by Iconoclast Texan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28913

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I went to a specialist this past week and ended up paying $0 copay and $0 deductible. The nurse or medical technician or whatever was like “wow where do you work? You have amazing insurance. Everyone in the office was asking” to which the front desk lady actually popped in the room minutes later and also asked. I said, “yea it’s good and I only pay X out of my check for my whole family and that’s why I am not for Medicare for all lol” and she said “yea lol okay sad face” and I felt bad

It sounds like you just discovered sliced bread in the year 2019. Is this your first decent job or something?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

As long as OatmealSwam and JohnnyShitSack get theirs in life, that’s all that matters.  I mean, fuck everyone else, really.  

That’s the American way. You can try to fight it but it’s a Sisyphean challenge to do so. Schultz is at least realistic on what the limits of what is possibly achievable in this country. It’d be nice if he had some actual policy positions 

Edited by Iconoclast Texan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28913

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I guess so. I’ve worked for F100’s twice and never had the amazing healthcare for my family I have today. When you get a taste of it you don’t want to lose it, I guess.

but maybe I’m just following the playbook of a bourgeoisie pig turned socialist in later life that bad_teammate did as well, and one day will sit back and think “man, I wasn’t right in accumulating wealth and providing comfort and nice things for my family because of privilege and now I’m happy to be taxed for the socialist things I agree with because I have plenty now and my family is set up well.”

Well, try not to mention it so much because it makes you sound like a rube who just got indoor plumbing. Also it's a lousy argument against Medicare for All. I don't think anyone on either side of that argument advocates employer based health insurance. Most want to delink employer based health insurance but just disagree on what to replace it with.

 

Edited by F250
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28913

Posted
Posted

I was listening to "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!" this morning and they were discussing Howard Schultz. Someone suggested he should run on a free wifi and public bathroom for all of America platform. It was also mentioned that Schultz had plans to build an identical White House across the street from the White House for no apparent reason.

tenor.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NBMisha

NBMisha 224

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, F250 said:

I was listening to "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!" this morning and they were discussing Howard Schultz. Someone suggested he should run on a free wifi and public bathroom for all of America platform. It was also mentioned that Schultz had plans to build an identical White House across the street from the White House for no apparent reason.

tenor.gif

Surely there will be more humor coming.  And those polls, have you ever seen 4 per cent approval, 50% non approval?  What is his super human CEO analytical prowess doing with that shit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
happyfunball

happyfunball 481

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I guess so. I’ve worked for F100’s twice and never had the amazing healthcare for my family I have today. When you get a taste of it you don’t want to lose it, I guess.

but maybe I’m just following the playbook of a bourgeoisie pig turned socialist in later life that bad_teammate did as well, and one day will sit back and think “man, I wasn’t right in accumulating wealth and providing comfort and nice things for my family because of privilege and now I’m happy to be taxed for the socialist things I agree with because I have plenty now and my family is set up well.”

I have only worked for F50 companies and directly reported to the executive committee who always complained about the healthcare so much so that one almost sued the company while working there. 

I have great healthcare now I work for a private company. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13234

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Social democracy is not an issue of individual choice. I'm an asshole who thinks he's smarter than he actually is, but I'm not such an egoist that I think my personal life decisions would impact the larger social or economic situation of the country. Me turning down opportunities to make a lot of money would not bring about any necessary social change. Self-abasement to please a god, whether it's a god of spirit or ideology, exists only to provide self-validation to the person flagellating himself.

I pursued, and still pursue, individual wealth in order to secure a comfortable future for myself and my family in a system I think is fundamentally broken. I cannot change the game by myself, so I have played and continued to play the game while endorsing and supporting political candidates who will hopefully change the game. Change the game by raising my taxes and destroying my industry (O&G) and I'll applaud. I'll give time and money to the candidate who advocates it.

Besides, my ideology is not one that advocates penury for everyone. I think everyone should live a life of plenty.

65d.jpg

"IF YOU LIKE SOCIALISM SO MUCH WHY DON'T YOU LIVE SOCIALISM!?"

I can't. I literally cannot live socialism. It's a system of economics.

*Cookie flies to Venezuela*

Cookie: "Hey, starving guy, be a capitalist!"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
Quote

The Democratic party has been put on notice. If it picks a pro-tax candidate to take on Donald Trump next year, a billionaire will probably enter the US presidential race as a spoiler. Whether that is Howard Schultz, the former chief executive of Starbucks, or someone else, is secondary. Any third-party plutocrat would have the means to split the vote and enable Mr Trump’s re-election. The inference is clear: a large chunk of America’s plutocracy would risk a second Trump term to keep their taxes low.

This is no trivial consideration. Independent candidates have changed the result in three of the past seven US presidential elections. Even a 1 per cent share of the vote, which is what Jill Stein, the Green party candidate, received in 2016, can tip the electoral college. Hillary Clinton won almost 3m more votes than Mr Trump. But she lost Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan by 77,000 — roughly half of what Ms Stein garnered in those states. She spent just $3.6m in total on the 2016 race. It was enough to change history.

With a net worth of $3.4bn, Mr Schultz could spend a hundred times what Ms Stein did yet it would amount to barely a tenth of his wealth. Should Democrats nominate a candidate who would hit the likes of Mr Schultz with a wealth tax, his ability to neutralise that threat would be considerable. Even if he decided not to run, the mere prospect could intimidate Democrats into choosing a more plutocrat-friendly candidate.
 

https://www.ft.com/content/9e9f00ce-2542-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

What is his plan for gun and immigration reform? I genuinely don't know and haven't heard.

Since Schultz has Starbuck's stores in all 50 states and 70 countries, he's probably dealt with the fact that each state is different with regard to its firearm laws.  The vast majority of gun laws are passed/enforced at the state level, not at the federal level.  That may color his thinking on it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85662

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Much like someone like, say, Beto (who doesn't get the kind of flak) he hasn't articulated anything outside of vaguely running on a platform of reform. Which is fine by me, for now.

Beto has gotten a lot of flack about his inability or non-desire to articulate his plans/solutions outside of "let's have a conversation" and "we have to be civil and have discourse."

That ain't going to win a Democratic primary full of ideas.  And probably why he hasn't jumped in yet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13234

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Beto hasn't gotten "the kind of flack" Schultz has gotten because Beto actually has some clearly stated positions (not nearly enough) and he's got a discernible overall worldview. Furthermore, his language is primarily one used in favor of the needs of the working class.

Schultz is a black box or, better yet, a blank slate onto which a "centrist" can paint whatever picture they want. All we really know about him is that he is so motivated by the concept of a 70% top marginal rate that he went from pure inaction to "I'm running for president to stop this". That is essentially Mitt Romney at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
babysdaddy

babysdaddy 2730

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Beto hasn't gotten "the kind of flack" Schultz has gotten because Beto actually has some clearly stated positions (not nearly enough) and he's got a discernible overall worldview. Furthermore, his language is primarily one used in favor of the needs of the working class.

Schultz is a black box or, better yet, a blank slate onto which a "centrist" can paint whatever picture they want. All we really know about him is that he is so motivated by the concept of a 70% top marginal rate that he went from pure inaction to "I'm running for president to stop this". That is essentially Mitt Romney at this point.

So if I'm getting this correct, Schulz decided to announce his run for president via 60 minutes interview on January 27th the (checks Twitter) day after Senator Warren came out with her wealth tax and a couple of weeks after AOC announced her 70% top marginal tax rate idea?  Just decided 'whoa, that's too much tax, better run for president to scare the dems'? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

So if I'm getting this correct, Schulz decided to announce his run for president via 60 minutes interview on January 27th the (checks Twitter) day after Senator Warren came out with her wealth tax and a couple of weeks after AOC announced her 70% top marginal tax rate idea?  Just decided 'whoa, that's too much tax, better run for president to scare the dems'? 

Apparently... [/kramervoice/]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...