Bloomberg reregisters as a Democrat...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by samcraig, Oct 10, 2018.

  1. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #2
    Not unexpected that someone who wants to put a tax on sugar as if it was his job to decide what people want to put into their own bodies, would register with the Democrats.
     
  2. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    He was actually a Democrat before he ran for Mayor. Switched parties. Now switched back. And given the GOPs idea of how to regulate women - I don't think Conservatives should speak.

    PS - Also - was it taxing sugar? Because here in NYC, it was regulating sugar. And it was a bit convoluted. As in, you could by a Starbucks Frappe with tons of sugar, but not get a large soda. Or whatever was proposed.

    I do like that sugar is more restricted in schools though.
     
  3. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #4
    No one is trying to regulate women, there is another life at stake, and that must be weighted. People are trying to respect human life, because we put value on it, their is no perfect solution, we live in an imperfect world.

    I thought Bloomberg served as an independent?

    He's always been on the crazy side of progressive, welfare State, and a health Nazi.
     
  4. JayMysterio macrumors 6502a

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge, California
    #5
    To badly paraphrase Biggie "When you don't know, you don't know." Then they post anyways.
     
  5. Jason Honer Suspended

    Jason Honer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2018
    Location:
    Boston MA
    #6
    What are the GOPs ideas for “regulating women”?
     
  6. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    Planned Parenthood
    Birth Control
    Abortion
    and so on
     
  7. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    I'm glad that he's done this. My biggest concern about 2020 has been that an independent (like Bloomberg) or a reasonable Republican (like Kasich) might mount a serious third-party candidacy and allow Trump to win again. If Trump's support remains in the low-40's, he's not going to win in a two-person race, but he would probably win if a third-party candidate can siphon off 5 to 10 percent of the vote like Johnson, Stein and McMullen did in 2016. Bloomberg has been particularly worrisome, given his ability to self-fund a large-scale national campaign.
     
  8. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #9
    I swear, the mental gymnastics it takes to fully support every platform of either party.

    Trying to protect the life of an unborn human baby===REGULATING WOMEN

    Trying to say the State has the right to prevent a child from eating or drinking sugar, not the parents===OUR CIVIC responsibility.

    Crazy much liberals?:p
     
  9. Jason Honer Suspended

    Jason Honer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2018
    Location:
    Boston MA
    #10
    I really hate this abortion debate and the false claim that conservatives/republicans are trying to control women. If we found microbes on Mars the left (and everyone else) would say “we found life on Mars. But the left will claim that a fetus isn’t life, it’s just cells. The “my body, my choice” argument is the same argument that slave owners made: “its on my land, so I’ll decide if you’re a person or if you’re property”. Anytime you draw a a line as to where life begins in the womb or draw that same line to actual living people. Ugh.

    And given all this, what republicans have moved to stop RvW? How has a women’s right to kill a baby in the womb been infringed upon.
     
  10. bambooshots macrumors 65816

    bambooshots

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    #11
    They oppose the execution of convicted killers but have no qualms about murdering unborn humans. I mean "clump of cells." They have to change definitions to make abortion more palatable.
     
  11. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #12
    Bingo! And FWIW, half of the slaughtered babies are more than likely female.......
     
  12. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #13
  13. JayMysterio, Oct 10, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018

    JayMysterio macrumors 6502a

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge, California
    #14
    The opposition of executing convicted killers is based on the fact that it's been shown some convicted killers are actually innocent. Those convicted killers who are actually NOT killers can be there due to malice, laziness, racism ( I threw that bone in there for you guys to further deviate. Like this abortion thing, in a thread about Bloomberg ), or just plain incompetence. Which means there might be a state sponsored killing of an innocent individual. No one should want that ever. The killing of one already existing innocent, has to be one too many for the state.

    While on the flip side there is an almost dogmatic zealous concern for the life of unborn individuals, but less to little or no concern once they are born. Solely because they maybe a drain on tax dollars, so funding for social programs for now born individuals needs to be slashed on an almost regular basis. The hypocrisy is maddening when you hear people make this stupid equivalence.

    It isn't about making abortion palatable. It's about leaving the choice of an abortion where it belongs. With the women it directly impacts. The restriction analogy is based on those who supposedly believe dogmatically we need smaller government, but want that same government large enough to dictate what choice a woman can have with her own body.



    Meanwhile.... back on topic.


    So... Bloomberg went democrat, huh? :cool:
     
  14. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #15
    There is a very good possibility that he will want the Democrat nomination for president in 2020.

    The cynical part of me thinks that's why he re-registered as a Democrat :).
     
  15. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #16
    My now personal thoughts and positions on the abortion issue don't really jibe with either party, I see goods and evils on both sides of the debate.

    I tend to side with people like Senator Rand Paul, and others I voted for, that women should have access to the morning after pill, I think they should be as free as rain, in every public restroom and other places so a women can be as free as she can to chose to abort a zygote.

    Even tho I believe human life starts at conception, that the spark of life enters the body when the sperm fertilizes the egg. However I don't believe you can kill a living soul by killing the human body. I think you just return that soul to God.

    Is there sin in it?

    Maybe, but it's not my sin, and my lord and savor Jesus Christ teaches forgiveness from all sin. To me that doesn't mean there won't be punishment, or that we don't need to try an atone for our sins. That type of reasoning means we don't have a just God, if I'm going to end up the same place as someone like Hitler, that's not the type of God I want to believe in.

    However, there is no perfect solutions to the issue, someone is going to get infringed on. If you know you had sex, and you have free access to the morning after pill, yet you chose not to use it, then I think the government can regulate for the safety of the fetus. The each case must be decided on merit, for example, if the parents find the fetus is deformed or won't have the chance at a normal or "good" life, I think that is between them and their doctors, and government should only give them a fair hearing to determine that is the case.

    Another example would be a child that was the victim of rape or incest, that wasn't aware or able to use the morning after pill, that would be another case were a hearing would be necessary. If for nothing else, to try and hold accountable anyone that rapes a child.

    I know these things are not perfect, that they lay burdens and infringements on some women, and I'm sure there are a lot of examples people can give that I don't have an answer for.

    Like I say, imperfect world, but that doesn't mean people are wrong for trying to protect the rights of the unborn.
     
  16. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
  17. eltoslightfoot macrumors 6502a

    eltoslightfoot

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    #18
    I agree with this, although the converse is equally silly for conservatives. Pro death penalty yet pro life?
     
  18. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #19
    That's fine with me. I wouldn't support him the primaries, but if he ran and won the nomination, I'd happily vote for him in the general election if he's the Democratic nominee.
     
  19. mac_in_tosh macrumors 6502

    mac_in_tosh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Location:
    Earth
    #20
    It's easy for some people to rip the soda tax, but obesity is a serious problem in the U.S. And since hospitals don't yet turn people away for lack of insurance, its consequences are a financial burden on everyone.

    I don't know the details of the NY soda tax but at least it was trying to do something to stem the tide of this problem. The soda companies continue to advertise heavily, so what is the "free market" alternative? If you say more education, I would guess the same critics would denounce those attempts as the nanny state sticking its nose where it shouldn't. Do we just continue to go down this rabbit hole until we're bankrupt?
     
  20. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #21
    I have no issue with either. I'm very much in favor of the death penalty if someone has been convicted with evidence (and particularly if he/she pleads guilty), but I'm also in favor of a woman having the right to choose.
     
  21. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #22
    I think that's likely the reason and he has enough money to pull an HRC with the DNC.
     
  22. ronntaylor macrumors regular

    ronntaylor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Location:
    Flushing, New York
    #23
  23. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #24
    Your hypocrisy assertion is ridiculous. I don’t want to see the guy across the street killed but I don’t worry about his well being or whether he has enough food on his plate, therefore I’m a hypocrite for caring about life? Ok it is not the job of the state to take care of your child. It is the job of the state to protect your child’s life. You don’t have the right to kill your child but it doesn’t mean we are responsible for feeding it. Amazing how you guys think you have the moral high ground by placing convenience for women over the child’s life. And also hypocritical since once the child is born you stop doing that. Drawing arbitrary lines on where life starts doesn’t make your position moral or correct. That being said, I have nothing against people who are pro choice just stop pretending that you’re protecting women and accusing everyone else of being sexist.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 10, 2018 ---
    I agree on this. This is why many people suggest hospitals do turn away people who can’t pay. That obviously has its own moral issues though.
     
  24. JayMysterio, Oct 10, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018

    JayMysterio macrumors 6502a

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge, California
    #25
    No one says it's the job of the state to care for yours or anyone else's child, that is intentionally dishonest equivalence. What I was pointing out is that in the effort to continually cut taxes, one of the first things always reached for by conservatives & supposed deficit hawks are social programs. Many of which are programs intended to help children in need whether it's with meals, educational programs, or more. Yet it's without blinking an eye those have to go, so a business can get a bigger tax break, in the hopes that will hire another already living person. Many of the same people ( I believe many of you call them liberals are for the social programs that are for children of any status who are born, to benefit from those programs. I believe that's a complaint actually from many on the right, those darn kids just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, or some such exaggeration. ) who are for a woman's right to choose, are also for the programs for children who are born into the world, unlike often times many who oppose abortion, but lose concern for that 'being' once it's in the world.

    It's all fine and good if you want to trumpet one is all about life or pro life, but be consistent. Or as someone from the church puts it...

    https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/14/opinion/costello-pro-life-pro-death-penalty/index.html

    Are you grasping the seeming conundrum there? o_O

    All life is sacred, including before it's born. But because of reasons, life is no longer sacred if it has been supposedly convicted of taking a life. The problem though as very clearly pointed out, it's possible and has happened when a person convicted of such a crime, isn't actually guilty of that crime. Then suddenly that sanctity of life is met with an 'oh well' shrug, some mental gymnastics, probably some blame for the victim, and back to being outraged by a woman wanting to make a decision as to what she wants to do with her own body.

    As far as your last personal issue, it's just that, a personal issue. I don't recall anyone calling anyone sexist, unless it's something you claim happened elsewhere. If that's the case, it doesn't apply on PRSI, that's a 'you' thing. What I'm personal claiming is being pro choice, means being in favor of woman making decisions about her own body. What you imagine from there, I can't help you with.
     

Share This Page

44 October 10, 2018