Other than your own opinion about what the implications are do you have any other evidence about when B-Bob has supported such draconian population controls? For what it's worth the Bloomberg Admin. after Sandy did make policy changes to improve things in the face of future storms. http://www.mikebloomberg.com/news/nycs-plan-to-prepare-for-the-impacts-of-climate-change/ [rquoter]“Since then, we’ve done a lot to attack the causes of climate change and make our City less vulnerable to its possible effects: strengthening the building code; building green infrastructure, including our nationally recognized Blue Belt, to prevent flooding; and taking steps that have helped reduce the City’s greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent – more than halfway to our goal of a 30 percent reduction by 2030. [/rquoter]
That those names are seriously the best we can come up with just boggles my mind. As far as the question goes, I live in Texas so it really doesn't matter who I vote for. The Republican candidate will win the state.
Sorry, B-Bob, but I no longer vote in non-public polls, unless Clutch starts them. I'll answer here, though. I'll vote for the candidate at the top of the Democratic ticket. Either Sanders or Clinton. I'm happy with either one, although I think Bernie would have a much higher chance of losing, even against the god-awful candidates the GOP is throwing up. Bloomberg? I wonder how he would split the vote? Who does he draw the most? Democrats or Republicans? I'm genuinely not sure. Like Trump, he can certainly afford to pay for a campaign.
For the majority of people, their vote does not count. This is why you should definitely vote in the primary.
The problem with your poll is that it conflates the primary with the general. While I'd probably vote for Sanders in the primary, once he loses and its a Clinton v. Republican v. Bloomberg in the general, I may well vote for Bloomberg as the least of remaining evils.
one of my favorite Twitter feeds <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>As presidente, yo defeato el ISIS by sendingo overo los grande sodas y food con transfats. Los terroristos will muerto of los diabeeetos.</p>— Miguel Bloombito (@ElBloombito) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElBloombito/status/691830777198297088" data-datetime="2016-01-26T03:51:25+00:00">January 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XdT-4Yrt6Yc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I'd vote for him. My fear is that would only help trump win though. He should have just gone for the Dem ticket.
"Opinions" of the implications of top down population control? Sterilization is easier and cheaper than education and contraceptives for highly uneducated poor people. It isn't an opinion. US Foreign aid given on the condition of population control programs is one of the massive **** ups in our foreign policy.
And where has B-Bob supported such policies? Do you have any explicit posts or other evidence where he has or are you just putting words in his mouth based on your own opinions?
You know, given his vitriol and surreal ad hom attacks (not just against me by any means), I'm done trying to communicate with him/her/it. Life's too short, and this place, trolls and all, is otherwise too fun. If anyone wants to hear my take on the world population, (why would you care?), here is the quick version. The topic of population needs to be on the table, but I don't support authoritarian top-down policies, period. Maybe an incentives policy but no invading peoples' homes and bodies. I also don't think the fact that we have finite resources, the fact that we are causing a mass extinction of other species, and the fact that modern human existence generates a decent bit of pollution should be called "junk science." That's my opinion. Read something by the excellent science writer David Quammen. (Try his article "Weed Planet" or the book "Song of the Dodo" and see what you think of the science.) Even shorter version: I mean, duh. This is not a radical, threatening view. It is just an informed opinion on a debatable topic. Okay, back to an otherwise surprisingly interesting thread. I'm surprised at the lack of Trump support on here. I think that would suggest his support skews much older or, if younger, then maybe not as educated as most of CF. Also surprised at the Bloomberg support. The massive sugar drink issue alone would kill him in the great (and heavy) state of Texas.
All that really needs to be done is proper sex education (extremely controversial to some people) and easy access to condoms and birth control (again far too controversial for some). Those two things tend to "control" population on their own.
Those things cost money and take time. When you tie foreign aid to population control it never happens. Cutting up a woman and telling her it is routine or reversible is much easier. Proof backing up what? That women are tricked into unwanted procedures under the guise of population control? LOL
Same thing. Tie funds to success and you have your oppression ont he poor and uneducated. Eugenics for the win. We are not in danger of running out of resources, we are in danger from people who have been saying we are running out of resources. Technology always outpaces population unless you reduce the division of labor, market size, number of inventors solving problems. Duh. This is the entire idea behind you and Bloomberg though. Tell people to stop using fire, then fly your helo to the Hamptons every weekend. Tell them to not have guns, your armed bodyguards go around and shoot people.
Any proof on the statements you made about Bloomberg. I quoted them again for you to see. I thought it was pretty clear what I was asking about, but since you are asking then maybe it wasn't very clear.
