2 2
turtlespeed

DNC Hopefuls

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

But they weren't counting the same voters. And, BTW, do you have time for this with all the reading BIGUN provided for your education? And what about proving me wrong that you are being subsidized at SDHV? You could start by showing how the 2019 $200,000 AIP grant to rehabilitate existing Hangars and another $30,000 for designing a new aviation fuel system doesn't benefit you.

This is the guy I like - saying truth about the guy you like.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483330-sanders-hits-bloomberg-for-trying-to-buy-the-presidency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

So, what you are saying is that the hard work that some have put into the nomination process can be trumped by just throwing money at it.  Also, the left is perfectly OK with that line of thinking.

Like I said, thinking about it like a poker game prevents you from understanding the situation. Once again, the point is not to reward those who have best worked the nomination process. The point is to find the person that democrats want to run for President. 
 

All that Bloomberg has ‘bought’ is a place on the platform. If people like what he says on that platform then it’s right for him to be there. If they don’t like what he has to say then it doesn’t matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jakee said:

Like I said, thinking about it like a poker game prevents you from understanding the situation. Once again, the point is not to reward those who have best worked the nomination process. The point is to find the person that democrats want to run for President. 
 

All that Bloomberg has ‘bought’ is a place on the platform. If people like what he says on that platform then it’s right for him to be there. If they don’t like what he has to say then it doesn’t matter. 

But when you can flood the media with publicity - good, bad, or indifferent . . . people vote for what they have seen, whether they know anything about it or not.

Remember? There is no such thing as bad publicity. - Phineas

I don't agree 100% with that quote, but it has a lot of truth to it.

I also can't get behind a party that thinks that hard work and perseverance is worthless.  I can't believe this is the way of thinking for Democrats.  Win at all costs, damn morality, and self respect!  Everything is secondary to money now.  What happened to the principals that the left is supposed to have?

It make me think how "The party of family values." gets ridiculed for its apparent lack of such.  Aren't the democrats supposed to be better?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

But when you can flood the media with publicity - good, bad, or indifferent . . . people vote for what they have seen, whether they know anything about it or not.

Sure, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats changing their procedure, and absolutely nothing to do with the stated reason you are angry in the first place. 
 

It’s also nothing that is unique to Bloomberg or a reason to have a problem with him. People who either have a lot of money or raise a lot of money can spend a lot of money. If you disagree with that you can lobby for electoral change, but it’s not Bloomberg’s fault that it’s currently allowed. 
 

30 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I also can't get behind a party that thinks that hard work and perseverance is worthless.  I can't believe this is the way of thinking for Democrats.  Win at all costs, damn morality, and self respect!  Everything is secondary to money now.  What happened to the principals that the left is supposed to have?

This makes no sense. Just because they don’t exclude rich people on principle doesn’t mean they don’t value hard work. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. If you want a party that despises rich people as much as you then go join the communists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
23 minutes ago, jakee said:

This makes no sense. Just because they don’t exclude rich people on principle doesn’t mean they don’t value hard work. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. If you want a party that despises rich people as much as you then go join the communists.

What's funny about this is that people have spent so long trying to paint Democrats as Communists that they're genuinely saying it's some kind of liberal hypocrisy to support someone who is as financially successful as Bloomberg. It's as if they're shadowboxing with their own earlier shadowboxing.

Edited by DJL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

But they weren't counting the same voters. And, BTW, do you have time for this with all the reading BIGUN provided for your education? And what about proving me wrong that you are being subsidized at SDHV? You could start by showing how the 2019 $200,000 AIP grant to rehabilitate existing Hangars and another $30,000 for designing a new aviation fuel system doesn't benefit you.

Sorry, we did not qualify for the upgrades, because the board considered us a business and said we were responsible for our own upgrades. And the fuel system upgrade is for Jet A which we don't use.  So try again.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Sorry, we did not qualify for the upgrades, because the board considered us a business and said we were responsible for our own upgrades. And the fuel system upgrade is for Jet A which we don't use.  So try again.

No problem. Any help from these?

2012

Mifflin County: Mifflin County Airport — $200,556 to construct a hangar taxiway.

2010

$170,625 to update their master plan & to design a hangar taxiway. 

2009

Mifflin County Airport—$250,000 to construct a 10-unit aircraft storage hangar;

You also benefit from the Pennsylvania State Aviation Development Fund which is funded through the collection of taxes on Jet Fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Nope, we are in a 56 year old hanger, we pay more rent than anyone at the airport and we buy more fuel than anyone at the airport.  We do use the FPO lounge on Safety Day however. I guess that makes me Friedrich Engels in your book.

You don't use the taxiways? Who paid for the parachute landing area acreage that you use for free? Maybe you do pay more rent than anyone but it doesn't come close to the cost of owning the place. So you know, another PennDOT fund subsidizes Mifflin Counties property tax obligation.

No, I don't think it makes you the equivalent of Frederich Engels. You are simply being stubborn and dishonest. You know full well what you pay in doesn't come close to the real expenses. What's the hangar rent, $800 a month? That's $9600 a year. Even if you are putting 300 hours a year on each 182, which is not likely, that's 7200 gallons of fuel taxed at 59 cents a gallon. You are still under $14K per year. Somebody elsewhere is picking up part of your tab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Its along the lines of "You had ONE job!" and you couldn't even do that.

That scenario would make it pretty obvious that whole process is completely mismanaged and shouldn't even exist in the first place. 

 

Right.  They made a mistake; they didn't get that guy in sooner.

So do you screw everyone?  Take your marbles and go home?  Or fix the game so that the people who have invested weeks in it can have a chance to finish it. and perhaps win it?

Quote

So, what you are saying is that the hard work that some have put into the nomination process can be trumped by just throwing money at it.  Also, the left is perfectly OK with that line of thinking.

Not at all.  Perhaps try a different strawman?

Quote

OK - So if I'm hearing you correctly:  The DNC doesn't have enough money to continue its election strategy, and NEEDS B-Bergs money to continue?  Where are all the contributors?  Where are all the wealthy up and comers?  Why aren't they donating?  Don't they care?

Nope.  It would like his money.  Nothing wrong with that; it makes them smart.  If that also gets them a better candidate it's a win-win.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Right.  They made a mistake; they didn't get that guy in sooner.

So do you screw everyone?  Take your marbles and go home?  Or fix the game so that the people who have invested weeks in it can have a chance to finish it. and perhaps win it?

Not at all.  Perhaps try a different strawman?

Nope.  It would like his money.  Nothing wrong with that; it makes them smart.  If that also gets them a better candidate it's a win-win.

 

Nothing quite like being Ok with trampling the little guy for money, is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Nothing quite like being Ok with trampling the little guy for money, is there?

The DNC is going to trample at least 28 little guys - and 21 have already been trampled.  This will happen whether or not Bloomberg gives the DNC lots of money, and whether or not he wins the nomination.  That's how nominations and elections work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billvon said:

The DNC is going to trample at least 28 little guys - and 21 have already been trampled.  This will happen whether or not Bloomberg gives the DNC lots of money, and whether or not he wins the nomination.  That's how nominations and elections work.

The DNC didn't trample them.

They spent the time and effort to get up on a debate stage.

The public opinion trampled them.

NOW - it seems that the DNC is trampling them with everything they have.

I see it like Big Oil going after a grass-roots Protest group.  You're Ok with that kind of thing, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billvon said:

The DNC is going to trample at least 28 little guys - and 21 have already been trampled.  This will happen whether or not Bloomberg gives the DNC lots of money, and whether or not he wins the nomination.  That's how nominations and elections work.

Maybe turtle would be happier if the presidency could be divided up fairly. You know, x number of days in office per popular vote percentage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
36 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Maybe turtle would be happier if the presidency could be divided up fairly. You know, x number of days in office per popular vote percentage.

I actually did like the old scenario of the President being the winner of the election and the Vice being the runner up.

. . . And we aren't talking about AFTER the election - we are talking about choosing the candidates.

 

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The DNC didn't trample them.

They spent the time and effort to get up on a debate stage.

The public opinion trampled them.

NOW - it seems that the DNC is trampling them with everything they have.

OK.  So if someone you don't like enters the race, the DNC is trampling the candidates that drop out.  If no one new enters the race, the public is trampling them.

Quote

I see it like Big Oil going after a grass-roots Protest group.  You're Ok with that kind of thing, right?

They do that every single day.  Their right to do that is enshrined in the First Amendment.  I generally disagree with what they say, but I defend their right to say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, billvon said:

OK.  So if someone you don't like enters the race, the DNC is trampling the candidates that drop out.  If no one new enters the race, the public is trampling them.

They do that every single day.  Their right to do that is enshrined in the First Amendment.  I generally disagree with what they say, but I defend their right to say it.

So, the difference here, is that you agree with Big Oil, I mean The DNC's position.  It is OK, in your book, that money is trumping the hard work and effort that Sanders has put in. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know, the rules were for participating in the early debates, and the percentage of

vote justification was to ensure someone would last long enough to make it worthwhile. Yes, Bloomberg bought his way in, but he has the money to keep himself in (as Trump did in 2016). 

My NYC cousin hates Bloomberg and loves Bernie, probably for different reasons than you do, Turtle (she’s a rabidly partisan Democrat normally). Bernie promises to shake things up, and I can understand the attraction; frankly, if he weren’t so old (yes, its ageist, but it’s a job with a 4-year commitment being given to a nearly 80-year-old), I’d like him better. Her sister has met him in the 80’s; he’s single-minded and completely uninterested in anything anyone else has to say (she and her husband were reporters for a Vermont newspaper at the time, so it was his job to talk to them).

But while he attracts popular opinion, he’s not that good at building coalitions and working with others, kind of like Rand Paul and his father before him. To get a bigger change, you need some sort of clout, and that’s generally political skill. Reagan brought some with skill, not sticks. I’m not down with some of what he brought, but he did it with skill, sunshine, and generally good humor.

Wendy P  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2