ANSWERS: 2
  • I don't know much about politics, but the way I see it democrats have made a mess of their party. They have driven most of their support platform away from them because of how they have acted. This person is 'less democrat' and therefore more attractive to those in the middle. I think that's the main reason I liked Trump. He was a businessman, not a politician.
  • Bloomberg is the knee-jerk reaction to Sanders. In reality, politics is a complex subject, but people like to boil things down into binary. Lefties, righties, commies, fascists, etc. It's what some call "groupthink." You're either for or against a person, a set of ideas, etc. Under that sort of lighting, Bloomberg looks like the more moderate candidate than Sanders. Bloomberg got his political start in the wake of the worst terrorist attack of our lifetime, so he supports a lot of what I call "nanny state" policies with a focus on keeping people safe from physical violence at the cost of their liberty. Sanders, on the other hand, supports policies that are focused on nannying people over their finances by having the state pay for their education, pay for their medical care, etc. On the other side of the fence, you have Trump, who has also flip-flopped his political party, but wants to trim down the government, but somehow keeps spending lots of money expanding the executive branch. Somehow the collective mainstream media doesn't seem to perceive that when the incumbent/frontrunner has extreme views, promoting a challenger who is a polar extreme to that doesn't balance anything, it just guarantees that an extremist will take office. They also seem to fail to recognize that a candidate with their own polar opposite extreme views on different topics doesn't make them moderate. For example, Bloomberg has been called "centrist" because he vehemently supports abortion (Saying that, regarding abortion, "On this issue, you're either with us or against us," condemning Chuck Schumer's support of Bob Casey for governorship of Texas - Bob Casey happens to be pro-life), which is perceived as a "lefty" stance, but also vehemently supports police harassing citizens based on the color of their skin, which is perceived as a "righty" stance (When "stop and frisk" was criticized for targeting young black men, Bloomberg said "Ninety-five percent of murders- murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16-25." Compare that statement with this graph: https://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/8cf05db/2147483647/resize/970x/quality/85/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.beam.usnews.com%2F6a%2F2f%2Fb0f31f8849789d236b14e0cd666b%2F160929-homicidevictimsbyrace-graphic.png ). But a true centrists are appalled by both stances.
    • Linda Joy
      Your graph sux! It only shows victims by race from what I can see. Most criminals stick to their own race, and I thought white people committed more crimes because there are more of them. However, when criminals don't stick to their own race whites are more often the victims. Probably because there are more of them! But I agree one size does NOT fit all!

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy