The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

who cares

[greg775]

LOL. Hardly any Democratic debates are on tap and the quote in there backs me up about Hilly's "coronation." Seriously, Democratic party should be ashamed of itself. Hillary does not want to get out there and speak so they've cut the number of debates dramatically. She and the Demo hiararchy knows she's already won the election barring her doing something monumentally stupid - something she's not going to do.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/why-democrats-callin...-192004677.html

[MexSoxFan#1]

I'm meh with Hillary but would vote for her over any of the nuts on the GOP side (I wouldn't mind Kasich but he isn't going to be the nominee). I like Sanders but this is Hill's to lose, and she'll most likely romp the GOP in the GE.

Edited August 7, 2015 by MexSoxFan#1

[Y2HH]

At this point in American politics, I seriously hope Trump wins, he's exactly what this country deserves.

 

Hillary/Jeb is just more of the same, so nothing will change and we will slowly sink deeper and deeper, the rich will continue getting richer, the poor poorer. At least with Trump it'll be like jumping off a cliff.

[Balta1701]

LOL. Hardly any Democratic debates are on tap and the quote in there backs me up about Hilly's "coronation." Seriously, Democratic party should be ashamed of itself. Hillary does not want to get out there and speak so they've cut the number of debates dramatically. She and the Demo hiararchy knows she's already won the election barring her doing something monumentally stupid - something she's not going to do.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/why-democrats-callin...-192004677.html

The challengers always want more debates than the front runner. In 2004 John Kerry asked Bush to "debate every week".

 

Frankly, I can't make a better argument for fewer debates than "look at how it worked for the Republican candidates the last 2 times out".

[caulfield12]

The challengers always want more debates than the front runner. In 2004 John Kerry asked Bush to "debate every week".

 

Frankly, I can't make a better argument for fewer debates than "look at how it worked for the Republican candidates the last 2 times out".

 

The process actually worked well to eliminate Cain, Bachmann, Perry, etc. Gave Gingrich second life and spiced things up.

 

Both McCain and Romney ran terrible general campaigns, and the combination of Palin and the economic catastrophe in Sept/Oct 2008 gift wrapped that election, although Obama was likely to win anyway without two more GOP attributed "mistakes."

 

Hard to say that Romney didn't improve a lot as a candidate with all the extra prep, but for some reason, he ran like he was afraid of his own record and the dog on the rooftop/dancing pony/car elevator tags were never conquered...along with his 47% will never vote GOP no matter what off the cuff remarks.

[bmags]

The challengers always want more debates than the front runner. In 2004 John Kerry asked Bush to "debate every week".

 

Frankly, I can't make a better argument for fewer debates than "look at how it worked for the Republican candidates the last 2 times out".

 

You think there were better republican candidates that lost in 2008 and 2012?

[caulfield12]

You think there were better republican candidates that lost in 2008 and 2012?

 

There's another argument as well.

 

Not only did the long (16+ months) process make Obama a better debater and general candidate, playing out almost all of those states until the very end of primary season gave the Dems the advantage for the ground/organizing game later in the fall.

 

Not only that, but the opportunity (additional time for finetuning) to improve their technology/social media to the point it ran circles around GOP efforts.

[Balta1701]

You think there were better republican candidates that lost in 2008 and 2012?

No, but I sure think they all came out of them looking poorly.

[bmags]

No, but I sure think they all came out of them looking poorly.

 

I don't think that's the multiple debates, I think thats the state's moves after 2008 to cut down on open primaries and make them only registered republicans.

[StrangeSox]

Canada's grueling 11-week election campaign began this week. Many Canadians think that is just too long.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-...2015/index.html

[bmags]

Very early on, I would jab at Uber. I had applied and been denied a job there (most of the angst), thought the ceo was a teenager after hearing the ayn rand love, and they came across as bro.

 

But I really find it odd how random the liberal side falls on things like this. I don't understand why anti-uber has become such a lib fav. The taxi industry had been so heavily criticized by the left for racial profiling and other things, and then held up as a gold standard of something now.

 

The licensing is ridiculous, the whole industry sucks.

 

So anyway, find it odd. I think the whole thing is dumb and have no idea why deblasio wasted so much time on something that as a whole people almost certainly view as a public good.

[StrangeSox]

Labor exploitation is really the core of it I think.

[Jenksismyhero]

Labor exploitation is really the core of it I think.

 

or lobbyists and votes.

[StrangeSox]

no I'm pretty sure liberal bloggers and twittereerererss aren't going after lobbyists and votes

 

edit: is there a big taxi lobby out there anyway?

Edited August 11, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

edit: is there a big taxi lobby out there anyway?

In New York?

[bmags]

Labor exploitation is really the core of it I think.

 

Which, frankly, is the heart of the current taxi industry.

[bmags]

no I'm pretty sure liberal bloggers and twittereerererss aren't going after lobbyists and votes

 

edit: is there a big taxi lobby out there anyway?

 

Every city.

[StrangeSox]

Which, frankly, is the heart of the current taxi industry.

 

I'm not exactly well-versed in the criticisms, but I think the idea is that it takes all the bad of the taxi industry and then dumps other costs on the drivers on top of it all while exploiting or just simply ignoring numerous regulations. Plus there's the issue of the drivers' insurance probably not covering an ad hoc livery service.

[Balta1701]

I'm not exactly well-versed in the criticisms, but I think the idea is that it takes all the bad of the taxi industry and then dumps other costs on the drivers on top of it all while exploiting or just simply ignoring numerous regulations. Plus there's the issue of the drivers' insurance probably not covering an ad hoc livery service.

Getting the insurance requirements up to speed has been a major step in many of the states where those programs are now allowed.

[bmags]

I'm not exactly well-versed in the criticisms, but I think the idea is that it takes all the bad of the taxi industry and then dumps other costs on the drivers on top of it all while exploiting or just simply ignoring numerous regulations. Plus there's the issue of the drivers' insurance probably not covering an ad hoc livery service.

 

Wellp, i ran out of time to respond, but I disagree with the costs, and I think other cities have done a better job of re-regulating than NYC and europes cease and desist laws.

 

Tehran runs on basically civilian cabbies doing it in free time and has for years.

[Jenksismyhero]

no I'm pretty sure liberal bloggers and twittereerererss aren't going after lobbyists and votes

 

edit: is there a big taxi lobby out there anyway?

 

I was referring more to the actions of NYC to try and save the taxi industry from Uber, which is clearly all about votes and money (via lobbying) and nothing to do with good public policy or what people want.

[Jenksismyhero]

Getting the insurance requirements up to speed has been a major step in many of the states where those programs are now allowed.

 

And getting rid of all the licensing medallion bulls*** on the city side, which is nothing but a revenue generator, is keeping costs low for you and I.

[bmags]

I was referring more to the actions of NYC to try and save the taxi industry from Uber, which is clearly all about votes and money (via lobbying) and nothing to do with good public policy or what people want.

 

Also: Paris and Rome.

[Balta1701]

How much longer can I bite my tongue in the Republican thread before screaming out "THE F***ING SENATE PASSED A COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL AND THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE WOULD HAVE PASSED IT BUT JOHN BOEHNER WOULD NOT BRING IT UP FOR A VOTE AND IT WOULD HAVE SOLVED 80-90% OF YOUR BORDER SECURITY PROBLEM ALREADY."

 

I'm taking bets.