Jump to content


One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Population gain is conditional on immigration, and Cleveland needs to incentivize people to move to the city. If the existing residents want to sabotage large scale, out-of-the-box approaches to true population growth, then bully for them.
  2. How much would more track cost? A couple hundred million dollars per mile? I just can't see the city/state/fed pumping that kind of money into those... economically challenged areas.
  3. It's a bummer. The city, region really, have tried for decades to make the city more desirable to businesses, residents, tourists, young adults, boomerangs, families, etc, but nothing has really worked. There is some kind of inner city aversion towards bringing in South and Central American immigrants ("they're replacing us!"), and we aren't getting enough Arabs, Africans and Asians outside of a few universities and hospitals.. Europeans certainly aren't coming either. So immigration isn't remotely offsetting the brain drain and population losses. If the city could truly change that mentality, or at least ignore the ignorant sloths who feel threatened by any change, and develop dramatic, and I mean DRAMATIC, changes to bring in immigrants (give them free housing and plots of land, low interest loans for businesses, guaranteed protection in the more dangerous neighborhoods, public schools that forbid gangbanging and disruptions), skilled and unskilled alike, that's probably the most realistic approach to population growth. Better universities would help as well.
  4. I would say that most voters don't really care about the minutia of his, or any Democrat's, issues. Not really. Otherwise, Warren would be in the lead substantially, since her ideas are great, grandiose, and would benefit the country significantly: she would be the best president by far. But it's those other issues that end up being key, and I'd rather vote for the capable candidate who can win than risk it with one who likely won't. As for the content on the site, it's just the usual well-worded, carefully crafted, optimistic rhetoric. Nothing special or distinguishing in particular.
  5. Might as well call them "Frank's Revenge".
  6. Ultimately there needs to be a candidate that energizes the base. AOC levels of energy. Obama levels. Hell, Trump levels. That's what will win the election. I think Bernie was close in 2016, but today it doesn't seem like there's that mobilization. My view is there is just a lot of apathy for the candidates other than Mayor Pete, in that he's resonating with prospective voters, MILLENIALS especially, more so than the other candidates, regardless of his qualifications. Warren would be the best president, but let's not kid ourselves, it isn't looking good. Gillibrand really f'd up with supporting Abbas Malik for so long. Harris is a viable candidate (polarizing with her background in law enforcement, which could be problematic), and sge would be a great VP with Pete, or vice versa. O'Rourke is a...how do I say this... a weirdo. It really comes down to who has the best chances of winning, and that energy is a big factor. Charisma. Other intangibles.
  7. Just a few bullet points why I'm voting for Mayor Buttigieg: He's a war veteran, and I believe that military service should be a requirement for all presidential candidates. That's just my opinion, obviously, but I think it's an important trait and needed experience for a commander in chief, so that he/she can have a unique empathy with the soldiers they lead. He's gay. Just as President Obama's race was important and a wonderful and admirable sign of progress, so too is Mayor Buttigieg's sexual orientation. He's brilliant. A Harvard boy. Rhodes scholar. Speaks half a dozen languages. He's a man of faith. This is the kind of religious person that is admirable, not the typical Republican evangelical lunatic but rather someone who is religious and spiritual for themselves, but not at the expense of others. He's young, a Millennial. What can I say, I think that we have too many geriatrics running for office. There is something to be said for having a young candidate in office. Millennial voting turnouts have been appalling; I could see that changing with him (or AOC once she turns 35) He's liberal and subscribes to the majority of the ideology's values i.e. universal background checks for gun owners, universal healthcare, abortion rights, etc. South Bend has seen a bit of a renaissance since his becoming a mayor. Whether it's deserved or not, credit and blame is attached to a city, state or country's leadership. Thus, in this case, he does deserve some of that credit. At the end of the day though, all the Democrats, and you Bernie, are basically saying the same thing: they're not Trump. Their differences by and large are nominal when you really break down to it, and compared to our traitor-in-chief, any of them would be a godsend. That said, I don't think there's all that much excitement about the candidates save for Mayor Pete. Warren is probably the most qualified of all, but she doesn't seem to have much momentum. Biden is atop of the polls, but is he really suggesting anything besides "I'm not Trump." Harris would be a great president as well, and I could see her either getting the nomination or being the VP. Bernie's time was 2016 (I'm sorry, he just looks like an old man - optics count), and too much of our country is afraid of socialism due to their ignorance as to what it even is. The guy is just too divisive; I think idealists often are. So yeah, I could get into the minutia of his policies (once I read up on them a bit more), but I think optics are a big thing too. He just... looks presidential to me. That helps a lot, it really does.
  8. Without question Buttieg is getting my vote, if he stays in the race. At least within my own circle of friends and work colleagues (let's say between late 20s through early 40s), he gets the most positive conversation. And it's too bad about O'Rourke because I legitimately like and admire him. But this whole endless apologizing is damaging and frustrating. Now he's sorry for saying he was born for the job on Vanity Fair? That's even more bizarre than his apology over his joke about sometimes helping his wife. And why apologize for his psychedelic warlord content? That was strange as well, I mean, should Stephen King apologize for his graphic writings? How about Poe? There is this strange anti-Trump, patronizingly sensitivity tone to the extreme. Not every comment is a reflection of white privilege, buddy. Too much baggage (I wonder if it's pathological), and he's lost some support as a result.
  9. That was an interesting article. The costs are just beyond the pale these days (for instance, the Long Island Rail Road project was almost $4 billion a mile of track). Someone, many someones, should have been locked up for that.
  10. Another noble sacrifice for the right. Ladeeda
  11. The most historic boxoffice weekend of all time. Maybe $375 million domestic, $1.2 billion globally. Only a Marvels movie can remotely touch this.
  12. Didn't we already have a market correction in December?
  13. They're full of shit. The Vessel looks awesome, is accessible to the public, and will be enjoyed by tens millions of people over time. This overanalysis is desperate and bourgey, and I bet they would have criticized the Eifel Tower with the same exaggerated rhetoric.
  • Create New...