Welcome to Thunderdome

Sanders says a woman can't win.

I'm sure that will play well with voters.

Candidate who never had a prayer ends campaign.

CNN opinion piece (They now call "analysis" in some cases. I'm looking for the pattern there.) about "8 words that spell doom for Sanders".

They're about his comment on a woman winning the election, but should have been "You eventually run out of other people's money."

Leisher wrote: CNN opinion piece (They now call "analysis" in some cases. I'm looking for the pattern there.) about "8 words that spell doom for Sanders".

They're about his comment on a woman winning the election, but should have been "You eventually run out of other people's money."

CNN is so tanked for Warren. This should be fun because it'll be Hillary 2.0. CNN asked Sanders if he said that about a woman not being able to win. He said absolutely not. Their follow up question to Warren was to ask how she felt when he said that. They just framed it as fact.

If anyone watched CNN, Sanders should be pissed.

Leisher wrote: CNN debate report card puts Warren above Sanders and Biden.

Buttigieg!

Most in the debate promised Medicare for all.

What would that cost?

A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending. That’s about as much tax revenue as the government brings in now. So if paid for through new taxes, federal taxation would have to roughly double.

Leisher wrote: CNN debate report card puts Warren above Sanders and Biden.

I'm thinking CNN might have just kept all the Bernie bros home in November if Warren takes the nomination.

Leisher wrote: Most in the debate promised Medicare for all.

What would that cost?

A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending. That’s about as much tax revenue as the government brings in now. So if paid for through new taxes, federal taxation would have to roughly double.

Well, we (the US) already spend $3.5T on healthcare. US spends $1.1T now, federally.

Bloomberg's strategy?

California should be the model on how to run the rest of the country.

Just wow.

I'm seeing a TON Of Bloomberg ads on TV here. I'm mostly just a morning news or sporting event kind of TV consumer, so he must be pounding the media markets in CA.

He's just buttering us up. I doubt most Californians would tell you some of the changes we've made would be good for the country as a whole. Some are very California focused, some are California necessary, but to claim that CA's policy choices are a cure-all for the nation are a joke.

Unless maybe you take it as a much larger picture, "unique state's have unique solutions to their issues". Does not seem like this is the effort.

His ads have been a single message " I'm a rich guy who doesn't take any money from special interest" ... and now here's an actor glowing about how good I was in NY. That's it, over and over.

Troy wrote: I'm seeing a TON Of Bloomberg ads on TV here.

Here, too. During Sports + Jeopardy.

Troy wrote: I'm a rich guy who doesn't take any money from special interest"

Same

Troy wrote: I'm a rich guy who doesn't take any money from special interest

Wasn't that what Trump said too?

Troy wrote: Some are very California focused, some are California necessary, but to claim that CA's policy choices are a cure-all for the nation are a joke.

Exactly.

Insane California idea floated last month: Park a cruise ship in the port of Oakland and house homeless people there.

Sort of sounds insane. Even got some push back from the Nimby's and the do-nothing groups (and the port).

But that push-back got a much stronger push-back from newspaper write-ins and opinion pieces. Basically - we have had the worst surge in homeless #'s in the Bay Area's history, it sure feels like an epidemic. Why wouldn't we consider some really out their ideas to address this issue? The amount we are dumping on the problem now is huge. A cruise ship full of 1k homeless would be tough, and expensive, but it's still a better concept and even economical when you consider some of the NIMBY shit, the do-nothing business as usual ideas, or the really expensive "build everyone a free house in SF" insanity.

The port had the objection that actually mattered - the infrastructure is setup to offload/load FREIGHT onto the birthed cargo ships - not people. Haven't heard much about this since then, but it might actually still happen...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 400158002/

I think the cruise ship idea has some merit. Although, there are a LOT of things to consider. Environmental impact. Fire/police/medical staff just for the ship. Who is maintaining it? Can the cable companies provide internet/TV? Safety issues. Cooking issues. Dangerous areas of the ship. Do you hire a crew? Perhaps staff the ship with trainers and require the folks that live there to agree to certain things like attending work shops on the ship to teach them job skills, and if they get in trouble with the law or break rules, they're out. And so on.

1. From what I know of ship docks, they're usually pretty far from facilities like grocery stores and restaurants. But that could be the point, couldn't it...

2. My dollar that says the lower decks almost immediately break down into a hellscape that not even law enforcement would dare to enter.

GORDON wrote: 2. My dollar that says the lower decks almost immediately break down into a hellscape that not even law enforcement would dare to enter.

I would not put my dollar against yours. That was my first thought as well.

And not even the homeless organizing. Gangs boarding, and taking over.

Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six : California Cruise Ship Edition.

You want to get rid of homelessness, make vouchers, and reduce building restrictions.

I'm trying to figure out why CA has a homeless problem, but FL doesn't to the same extent.