Economic Conditions - Nashville, TN, U.S., Global

[Nash_12South]

Cooper's plan may be what is best for the city to come out the other side of this, but running Nashville is not a charity. Politics is based on building relationships, making friends and using that to get what you want done. Cooper now needs many of the folks he ran and railed against to get elected. He gambled he wouldn't need those folks.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Nash_12South

[TheRaglander]

34 minutes ago, Jarno said:

This quarantine was sold as a two week slow the spread so that hospitals were not overwhelmed.  Nashville hospitals are not overwhelmed and had 65% decrease in admissions year over year in April.  But Nashville is still shutdown and property taxes are going up and the summer tourist season has already been pretty much torpedoed.   I didn't say it here, but closing the economy was easy, getting everybody to agree when to reopen is going to be a nightmare.  In 6 months from now, there will not be a lot of talk of Covid-19 in my opinion but we will be talking a lot about the shutdown that changed America for a long, long time.

I wish you were right about no talk about it in 6 months.  Even though the country was united early on, sadly the politicians and media are using this as a tool for the elections.  So we will see it for a while.  But you nailed it on the head.  This was about flattening the curve so the hospitals will not be overwhelmed.  Not kill the virus.  We knew people would get it.  We just wanted to make sure they can be treated.  In March, perhaps they couldn't be treated.  But they can now.  The country organized and created a surplus of ventilators and masks.  Temporary beds/tents were created.  (Which are now being take down all over the country).  What we have now is a political weapon and that's what it will be for a while. 

[DDIG]

1 hour ago, titanhog said:

No doubt the mayors before him kicked the can down the road.  However...Cooper got himself elected by stating “no property tax increase”...yet here we are.  He comes off as disingenuous.  Plus his fight against new development is dangerous.

This 100%. Raising property taxes were the right thing to do years before a disaster (lowest rate in 58 years during the city's most prosperous stretch) - it was desperately needed to scale up services - but Cooper instead vilified things that are barely a blip on the overall budget like corporate incentives and ran on there was no need for a property tax.

[ruraljuror]

5 hours ago, TheRaglander said:

I wish you were right about no talk about it in 6 months.  Even though the country was united early on, sadly the politicians and media are using this as a tool for the elections.  So we will see it for a while.  But you nailed it on the head.  This was about flattening the curve so the hospitals will not be overwhelmed.  Not kill the virus.  We knew people would get it.  We just wanted to make sure they can be treated.  In March, perhaps they couldn't be treated.  But they can now.  The country organized and created a surplus of ventilators and masks.  Temporary beds/tents were created.  (Which are now being take down all over the country).  What we have now is a political weapon and that's what it will be for a while. 

Shelter at home recommendations/orders were not only about flattening the curve so that hospitals don't get overwhelmed, they were also about buying time so that doctors and scientists could work on vaccines, testing, treatment tech & best practices, and prophylactic/preventative drugs, etc.  Also, we needed (need) as much time as possible to ramp up production on safety materials and equipment for currently known treatments (i.e. PPE and ventilators) while beefing up the production and supply chain capacity for when vaccines, tests, treatments, and prophylactics are ready for mass production. 

Point being, it was never all about flattening the curve.

As to the political weapon, I hear what you're saying - just about everything (justly and/or unjustly) is used as a political weapon these days.  That said, there were political decisions  (made by politicians) that have very much defined our governmental response to this pandemic, starting on the federal side with cutting CDC budgets and eliminating infectious disease experts from prominent positions in our national intelligence chain of command - and that was all in the pre-pandemic days.  There have also been a number of political decisions that were made after Covid-19 was identified, including when/how various travel bans and shut down orders were implemented, decisions about when/how and when not to activate the defense production act, how economic relief efforts should be focused and allocated, federal v. state resource procurement issues, and testing rollout  - as well as a considerable number of other issues to say the least.

Point being, undoubtedly both sides of the political aisle will do their best to use the political issues that surround this pandemic to their advantage, but it seems to me that these are some pretty important issues that we very much ought to be discussing right now in terms of who we want leading us and handling these kinds of issues going forward.  As it turns out, who we've got running our government is pretty important and can have a major impact on how we as a country manage the issues that we face, for better and for worse. 

I'll also note that Dr. Fauci announced today that there is some very promising work being done on the treatment front, so buying time to that end has been effective. I'll also note that despite only having 60k deaths formally attributed to the virus thus far in the US, we're over 100k deaths beyond the normal, rolling average death range for the last 6 to 8 weeks (and that is with significantly reduced deaths from motor vehicle accidents) so the virus is doing a lot more damage than we currently have the testing capacity to track. The curve has surely flattened to some degree as a result of our efforts thus far, but we are a long way from being out of the woods in terms of making sure that our hospital systems don't become overwhelmed. I hope those temporary beds/tents won't be needed, but that horrific scenario is still a very real possibility in many places.

I wish this nightmare were over as much as everyone else does, and we all certainly can't stay in lockdown mode forever, but political calculations should have no part in perpetuating the shutdown nor should they be used to justify a premature re-opening.  Epidemiologists and the statisticians in their support staff are the ones we ought to be taking our cues from for the time being until we have sufficient testing and tracking capabilities in place nationwide at a minimum - in the meantime most everything else is noise.

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by ruraljuror

[rolly]

How many decades has Dr. Fauci been in charge of America's pandemic response.  Over 30 years?

Was he preparing the country with adequate stores of masks and other personal protective gear?  No.  The big one finally came, and his plans were exposed as woeful.  The public and medical staffing are all holding the bag now.

 

And he's not the only Federal Gov scientist that deserves criticism.   There's tons of these agencies that are corrupt to the core and in the pockets of Big Pharma and other corporations.  You say 'trust these scientists, they know best'.  LOL   look at the FDA making pot a Schedule 1 drug (just like Heroin).  'no possible medical value'.  Which is a complete farce, which goes on to this day.  So I guess we shouldn't have blind trust in these government officials after all...

 

[nashvylle]

So are Alliance Bernstein, Amazon, Asurion, SmileDirect all getting their incentives cut in half? 

[ruraljuror]

51 minutes ago, rolly said:

How many decades has Dr. Fauci been in charge of America's pandemic response.  Over 30 years?

Was he preparing the country with adequate stores of masks and other personal protective gear?  No.  The big one finally came, and his plans were exposed as woeful.  The public and medical staffing are all holding the bag now.

 

And he's not the only Federal Gov scientist that deserves criticism.   There's tons of these agencies that are corrupt to the core and in the pockets of Big Pharma and other corporations.  You say 'trust these scientists, they know best'.  LOL   look at the FDA making pot a Schedule 1 drug (just like Heroin).  'no possible medical value'.  Which is a complete farce, which goes on to this day.  So I guess we shouldn't have blind trust in these government officials after all...

 

If you don't trust government scientists because of perceived private influence (by Big Pharma, etc.) then I assume you don't trust scientists in the private sector either, since that private influence would be even more direct. What does that leave you with - academics? That doesn't really help since almost all of them rely on public and/or private grants to fund their work.  I'm genuinely curious, what scientists do you find to be credible?

Regardless, obviously Dr. Fauci doesn't make the list of scientists in which you're willing to place your trust, which is fine so long as there are other credible scientists whose expertise you are willing to rely on. That said, I do think it's a bit unfair to blame Fauci for the depleted national PPE stockpile since he wasn't in charge of his budget over the years, for one. Also, that stockpile has only been in existence for about 20 years (Bill Clinton era) and we did give almost 18 tons of it away to China in February I believe - which was a decision announced by the State Department as opposed to Fauci's NIAID, though I have no idea whether he supported or opposed that decision (if he was even consulted).

You also skipped over the role of the CDC (their budgets) and other prominent positions in our government where scientists once (but no longer) held sway...but if you think it's better to listen to people who have no scientific or medical expertise,  you're unfortunately far from alone in making that particular calculation.  Just be aware that those non-scientists in which you're placing your faith are often encumbered by conflicts of interest from the private sector too, right?  It's all the baggage with none of the knowledge, which seems like a bad plan to me.

All that said, I agree with you about the Schedule 1 issue - though it would be a lot simpler to reclassify pot via congressional action (overturning the Nixon Era Controlled Substances Act) as opposed to doing it through the FDA, which is a much more complicated process that would require a lot of coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  Point being, the scientists aren't the ones getting in the way of federal pot reclassification, it has primarily been an issue of lack of political courage in the legislative and executive branches on both sides of the aisle.

Edited April 29, 2020 by ruraljuror

[DDIG]

42 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

So are Alliance Bernstein, Amazon, Asurion, SmileDirect all getting their incentives cut in half? 

Yep, also older ones like Dell and LifePoint. And guess what. It will save us a whopping $1.6 million out of a $500 million+ budget hole. Weird because I saw so much rhetoric from our Mayor about how corporate incentives were a big part of our budget challenges. 

[nashvylle]

2 minutes ago, DDIG said:

Yep, also older ones like Dell and LifePoint. And guess what. It will save us a whopping $1.6 million out of a $500 million+ budget hole. Weird because I saw so much rhetoric from our Mayor about how corporate incentives were a big part of our budget challenges. 

I'm confused- wasn't Amazon due like $17MM in incentives? How are numerous companies' incentives at 50% only account for $1.6MM? I know it's just 1 fiscal year and the $17MM isn't paid out all at once, but still $1.6MM seems small. 

Assuming the $1.6MM is correct (no reason to believe it's not), hopefully these companies don't cause too much of a stink?

Edited April 29, 2020 by nashvylle

[DDIG]

7 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

I'm confused- wasn't Amazon due like $17MM in incentives? How are numerous companies' incentives at 50% only account for $1.6MM? I know it's just 1 fiscal year and the $17MM isn't paid out all at once, but still $1.6MM seems small. 

Assuming the $1.6MM is correct (no reason to believe it's not), hopefully these companies don't cause too much of a stink?

Actually, I was wrong. It is $1.2 million. Maybe Amazon isn't included, they call it "historical" but  haven't made that clear yet. The city will pay Amazon a $500-per-job incentive — up to $2.5 million every year  — for seven years. So if it does include them I guess it is just based on current staffing levels which certainly aren't near 5,000 yet.

Economic Development Grants @ 50%: 6 companies historical incentives reduced 1.2

https://www.nashville.gov/Portals/0/SiteContent/MayorsOffice/docs/news/Cooper/BudgetPresentation-200428.pdf

Page 28.

To your question: hopefully these companies don't cause too much of a stink...

Maybe it isn't a big financial sting for them in the grand scheme of things, but is certainly another indicator that Cooper isn't good on his word and will not do job creators any favors - perpetuated by the fact he already killed done deals with Smile Direct and Asurion before crisis ever hit.

Edited April 29, 2020 by DDIG

[TheRaglander]

[Jarno]

17 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Shelter at home recommendations/orders were not only about flattening the curve so that hospitals don't get overwhelmed, they were also about buying time so that doctors and scientists could work on vaccines, testing, treatment tech & best practices, and prophylactic/preventative drugs, etc.  Also, we needed (need) as much time as possible to ramp up production on safety materials and equipment for currently known treatments (i.e. PPE and ventilators) while beefing up the production and supply chain capacity for when vaccines, tests, treatments, and prophylactics are ready for mass production. 

Point being, it was never all about flattening the curve.

As to the political weapon, I hear what you're saying - just about everything (justly and/or unjustly) is used as a political weapon these days.  That said, there were political decisions  (made by politicians) that have very much defined our governmental response to this pandemic, starting on the federal side with cutting CDC budgets and eliminating infectious disease experts from prominent positions in our national intelligence chain of command - and that was all in the pre-pandemic days.  There have also been a number of political decisions that were made after Covid-19 was identified, including when/how various travel bans and shut down orders were implemented, decisions about when/how and when not to activate the defense production act, how economic relief efforts should be focused and allocated, federal v. state resource procurement issues, and testing rollout  - as well as a considerable number of other issues to say the least.

Point being, undoubtedly both sides of the political aisle will do their best to use the political issues that surround this pandemic to their advantage, but it seems to me that these are some pretty important issues that we very much ought to be discussing right now in terms of who we want leading us and handling these kinds of issues going forward.  As it turns out, who we've got running our government is pretty important and can have a major impact on how we as a country manage the issues that we face, for better and for worse. 

I'll also note that Dr. Fauci announced today that there is some very promising work being done on the treatment front, so buying time to that end has been effective. I'll also note that despite only having 60k deaths formally attributed to the virus thus far in the US, we're over 100k deaths beyond the normal, rolling average death range for the last 6 to 8 weeks (and that is with significantly reduced deaths from motor vehicle accidents) so the virus is doing a lot more damage than we currently have the testing capacity to track. The curve has surely flattened to some degree as a result of our efforts thus far, but we are a long way from being out of the woods in terms of making sure that our hospital systems don't become overwhelmed. I hope those temporary beds/tents won't be needed, but that horrific scenario is still a very real possibility in many places.

I wish this nightmare were over as much as everyone else does, and we all certainly can't stay in lockdown mode forever, but political calculations should have no part in perpetuating the shutdown nor should they be used to justify a premature re-opening.  Epidemiologists and the statisticians in their support staff are the ones we ought to be taking our cues from for the time being until we have sufficient testing and tracking capabilities in place nationwide at a minimum - in the meantime most everything else is noise.

 

Flattening the curve is how it was sold to the American people.  If you had said, oh, we are closing your lively hood and it may be months or years before you can work and you will likely lose everything I think the acceptance would have been a lot different.  

 

 

[Craiger]

22 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

Cooper's plan may be what is best for the city to come out the other side of this, but running Nashville is not a charity. Politics is based on building relationships, making friends and using that to get what you want done. Cooper now needs many of the folks he ran and railed against to get elected. He gambled he wouldn't need those folks.

Need these folks for what? You don’t think the council will approve (with tweaks I’m sure) his budget?

[Nash_12South]

1 hour ago, Craiger said:

Need these folks for what? You don’t think the council will approve (with tweaks I’m sure) his budget?

A version of the budget will get passed no doubt. I imagine that Cooper has, or perhaps had, plans for the direction he wanted to take Nashville in. He may say he is a democrat but he appears to lean to right side of the party, where most of council, and a significant percentage of Nashvillians, are to the left. Debatably, he won mainly on not raising taxes and because Briley had problems in the charisma department, not on his grand visions for the city and it's people. Now, he's had to go back on his main campaign promise.  In a way, he came across as anti growth and anti tourism, both of which we really need to come back in a big way.

It's not fair, but most folks look for someone to blame when life treats them badly, and I think Cooper will get a big share of that. What can Cooper do to benefit most Nashvillians at this point that doesn't involve money, that we don't have? 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Nash_12South

[DDIG]

1 hour ago, Craiger said:

Need these folks for what? You don’t think the council will approve (with tweaks I’m sure) his budget?

It ultimately will because there's no choice. Although you can't overstate the absolute fact that Cooper has truly alienated most of the city. Typically when passing something like a massive property tax rate, entities will come to support you and help deflect. The Chamber announces this has to happen, corporations and community groups pledge their support, release statements. This will not happen for Cooper. He has not built any  support or trust, and has acted like it is him against the world since the first day he became a council member.

[downtownresident]

36 minutes ago, DDIG said:

It ultimately will because there's no choice. Although you can't overstate the absolute fact that Cooper has truly alienated most of the city. Typically when passing something like a massive property tax rate, entities will come to support you and help deflect. The Chamber announces this has to happen, corporations and community groups pledge their support, release statements. This will not happen for Cooper. He has not built any  support or trust, and has acted like it is him against the world since the first day he became a council member.

Yup. He will likely be a one term mayor unless he performs a dramatic turnaround with the business community. He’s given them all of the ammo they need to torpedo him with a slightly more progressive but business friendly candidate. 

[ruraljuror]

2 hours ago, Jarno said:

Flattening the curve is how it was sold to the American people.  If you had said, oh, we are closing your lively hood and it may be months or years before you can work and you will likely lose everything I think the acceptance would have been a lot different.  

 

 

I probably should have been more clear in my last post: To flatten the curve essentially 'means' to buy time.  Flattening the curve is just a statistical concept that makes no claims about virus eradication, for example.  In fact, if the x-axis plots time, then a flatter curve by implication is probably going to have wider upward and downward sloping tails and will therefore take longer than a sharp rise/decent. In the context of the pandemic, it just means taking measures to make the infection/death growth rates grow more slowly, essentially turning a steep mountain peak into a wider, rolling hill (or more likely, hills).

That said, I can understand your confusion given the fair amount of conflicting information that was being passed around in February and early March (which seems like a lifetime ago).  Hell, back then even the president was pushing the idea that cases 'would soon be zero' - which ultimately may not even be an incorrect statement depending on how one defines 'soon'...

All that to say, most of the credible information I was seeing in the lead up to the lock down gave no indication that the process of flattening the curve was going to be over very quickly.  There was a lot of talk about how it would take 2 weeks to see if our measures to flatten the curve were even working, but there was no indication that even a successful flattening of the curve would mean that we would then get to immediately return to some semblance of our normal lives.  In fact, most of what I was reading/hearing at the time led me to believe that our lockdown measures likely wouldn't be sufficient, and we could expect to see increasingly severe lockdown rules implemented about every two weeks for a while to come thereafter.  Obviously that hasn't happened, of course, (thankfully, I guess) and couldn't really happen in an environment where we lack adequate testing to truly know the degree to which we've effectively flattened the curve thus far.  Without those tests, we're all still just playing a guessing game, which ties one hand behind the back of those promoting quantitative assessments and solutions to the pandemic, which (not coincidentally) is an advantage to those who would like to push agendas and 'solutions' that conflict with the cold hard math.  That dynamic alone probably accounts for a significant amount of the public's misunderstanding of the situation.

All that to say, who was it that 'sold' you and the American people the idea that flattening the curve would be a quick process? I'm genuinely curious. In any case, whether it was politicians, particular media outlets, or friends/family/neighbors that planted that seed in your brain, I recommend finding other supplementary sources when seeking pandemic info going forward, because it seems like you're right that you  were sold a bad bill of goods. 

 

[Jarno]

Nobody is planting anything in my brain.  I can clearly see this is a virus and it will not just go away.  It will always be around.  Clearly this effects the elderly and those with underlying conditions the worst.  Around 12,000 people die falling down stairs each year.  That number is similar to those who have died from the virus that were not elderly or with underlying conditions.   Some people will choose to focus on the 195  fatalities who had Coved listed as possible contributing condition here in Tennessee.  I morn them too.  But I'll continue to focus on the 6,829,000 survivors here in Tennessee who are being decimated by the lock downs.

[titanhog]

2 hours ago, Nash_12South said:

A version of the budget will get passed no doubt. I imagine that Cooper has, or perhaps had, plans for the direction he wanted to take Nashville in. He may say he is a democrat but he appears to lean to right side of the party, where most of council, and a significant percentage of Nashvillians, are to the left. Debatably, he won mainly on not raising taxes and because Briley had problems in the charisma department, not on his grand visions for the city and it's people. Now, he's had to go back on his main campaign promise.  In a way, he came across as anti growth and anti tourism, both of which we really need to come back in a big way.

It's not fair, but most folks look for someone to blame when life treats them badly, and I think Cooper will get a big share of that. What can Cooper do to benefit most Nashvillians at this point that doesn't involve money, that we don't have? 

Umm...no...he doesn't lean right.  If he leaned right...the last thing he would have done was ran off Oracle or any other corporation.  He may have used the "no new taxes" mantra to appease poor voters and those on the right...but ultimately, his left-leaning persona wins out.

[ruraljuror]

2 hours ago, Jarno said:

Nobody is planting anything in my brain.  I can clearly see this is a virus and it will not just go away.  It will always be around.  Clearly this effects the elderly and those with underlying conditions the worst.  Around 12,000 people die falling down stairs each year.  That number is similar to those who have died from the virus that were not elderly or with underlying conditions.   Some people will choose to focus on the 195  fatalities who had Coved listed as possible contributing condition here in Tennessee.  I morn them too.  But I'll continue to focus on the 6,829,000 survivors here in Tennessee who are being decimated by the lock downs.

Well, the issues you're raising in this post are entirely separate and distinct from the issues you raised in your the last post where your concern was about what 'The American people were sold' regarding flattening the curve.

That said, I understand both your frustration and your perspective on this.  Nobody wants to be in this position.  But you do realize that the 12,000 death's you're citing would be a lot higher if we weren't taking the drastic curve flattening measures that you're advocating against. It's not exactly a compelling argument when the data you're relying on runs contrary to the position you're advocating.  That's like using data that shows that fewer people smoking cigarettes leads to fewer cases of lung cancer in order to promote the idea that smoking isn't as dangerous as it used to be and therefore more people should smoke.

12,000 people may die each year from falling down the stairs (I'll take your word for it), but in this situation we're all on one giant staircase together - and every person that falls has a good chance of knocking a couple more people down the stairs with them on their descent. If we don't give plenty of clearance between the people ahead of us and behind us on those stairs, then a lot more than 12,000 of us are going to get taken down in what could ultimately become a human avalanche.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by ruraljuror

[ruraljuror]

4 minutes ago, titanhog said:

Umm...no...he doesn't lean right.  If he leaned right...the last thing he would have done was ran off Oracle or any other corporation.  He may have used the "no new taxes" mantra to appease poor voters and those on the right...but ultimately, his left-leaning persona wins out.

I feel like this debate has already been discussed on this board several times.  Right and Left are spectrums (or a continuum maybe) but there's a lot of gray area that can lead to these kinds of confusion. 

Cooper was certainly to the right of Briley (and most of the field for that matter before the run-off) which is why some claim he's relatively to the Right. Others claim he's relatively to the Left because he's a Democrat (in name at least) and won in a fairly progressive city. Both are fair (albeit half-baked) analyses.

Did you vote for Briley or Cooper (or none of the above), Titanhog?  I voted for Briley, but I wasn't thrilled with the choice. Most of those who lean progressive that I know did the same (anecdotally), while most of those I know that lean conservative voted for Cooper (while not being thrilled with their choice either).  This makes sense of course, because Cooper was the more conservative candidate while Briley was the more liberal candidate.  Seems pretty straightforward to me. 

 

[TheRaglander]

9 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

Well, the issues you're raising in this post are entirely separate and distinct from the issues you raised in your the last post where your concern was about what 'The American people were sold' regarding flattening the curve.

That said, I understand both your frustration and your perspective on this.  Nobody wants to be in this position.  But you do realize that the 12,000 death's you're siting would be a lot higher if we weren't taking the drastic curve flattening measures that you're advocating against. It's not exactly a compelling argument when the data you're relying on runs contrary to the position you're advocating.  That's like using data that shows that fewer people smoking cigarettes leads to fewer cases of lung cancer in order to promote the idea that smoking isn't as dangerous as it used to be and therefore more people should smoke.

12,000 people may die each year from falling down the stairs (I'll take your word for it), but in this situation we're all on one giant staircase together - and every person that falls has a good chance of knocking a couple more people down the stairs with them on their descent. If we don't give plenty of clearance between the people ahead of us and behind us on those stairs, then a lot more than 12,000 of us are going to get taken down in what could ultimately become a human avalanche.

 

 

It would be great if you would stop making sense.  It isn't helping my opinion or perspective on this matter.  
Joking aside, the civility in your responses is greatly appreciated.  It's what our country is missing when discussing opposing viewpoints.  People quickly shift to the extreme of each side and the middle is lost.  I even had someone call me a murderer because I mentioned how I would like for things to return to normal.   Cheers

[titanhog]

19 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

I feel like this debate has already been discussed on this board several times.  Right and Left are spectrums (or a continuum maybe) but there's a lot of gray area that can lead to these kinds of confusion. 

Cooper was certainly to the right of Briley (and most of the field for that matter before the run-off) which is why some claim he's relatively to the Right. Others claim he's relatively to the Left because he's a Democrat (in name at least) and won in a fairly progressive city. Both are fair (albeit half-baked) analyses.

Did you vote for Briley or Cooper (or none of the above), Titanhog?  I voted for Briley, but I wasn't thrilled with the choice. Most of those who lean progressive that I know did the same (anecdotally), while most of those I know that lean conservative voted for Cooper (while not being thrilled with their choice either).  This makes sense of course, because Cooper was the more conservative candidate while Briley was the more liberal candidate.  Seems pretty straightforward to me. 

 

Why don't you quote the guy who called him "lean to the right"?  Instead...you have to respond to the person who once again points out the hypocrisy.  I realize conservatives are the "bogeyman" to the left...but to brand Cooper as anything other than a lifelong Democrat is hypocritical.  Davidson County has always been liberal...and has always had liberal leaders.  Own it.  It's easy to own Bredesen and Dean...who I perceive as good mayors (even though Dean can probably be partly to blame for some of the financial woes)...but it's not as easy to own the last 3 mayors.  By saying that any of them "lean to the right" is a mockery.  Just own it.

And yes...I will ALWAYS point out the hypocrisy on this board when it comes to politics until the moderators either decide to play fair game or kick me off this site.

[ruraljuror]

21 minutes ago, titanhog said:

Why don't you quote the guy who called him "lean to the right"?  Instead...you have to respond to the person who once again points out the hypocrisy.  I realize conservatives are the "bogeyman" to the left...but to brand Cooper as anything other than a lifelong Democrat is hypocritical.  Davidson County has always been liberal...and has always had liberal leaders.  Own it.  It's easy to own Bredesen and Dean...who I perceive as good mayors (even though Dean can probably be partly to blame for some of the financial woes)...but it's not as easy to own the last 3 mayors.  By saying that any of them "lean to the right" is a mockery.  Just own it.

And yes...I will ALWAYS point out the hypocrisy on this board when it comes to politics until the moderators either decide to play fair game or kick me off this site.

I didn't respond to the poster who said that Cooper "leans to the right" because that's exactly what Cooper did in his campaign. He positioned himself to the right of his opponent in a non-partisan election.

If you (like most conservatives that I know) voted for Cooper, then it seems like y'all should be the ones that own it.  I sure didn't vote for him, and I'll ask again (since you didn't answer last time) did you vote for him?

I'm not sure what Davidson County's historical voting trends nor Coopers nominative party affiliation have to do with anything.  As I noted, Left and Right is a spectrum - no candidate is generally all one thing or all the other.  And regarding party membership - Donald Trump claims to have been a lifelong Democrat before running for president as a Republican.  Do you think that Democrats should claim Trump or does it make more sense to give the credit to the voters who nominated him and put him into office?  This doesn't seem to be all that contentious of a concept to me. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by ruraljuror

[titanhog]

4 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

I didn't respond to the poster who said that Cooper "leans to the right" because that's exactly what he did in his campaign. He positioned himself to the right of his opponent in a non-partisan election.

If you (like most conservatives that I know) voted for Cooper, then it seems like y'all should be the ones that own it.  

No matter how you slice it...he's a Democrat.  But of course...I see the liberals on here continually trying to blame conservatives for the mess Davidson County is in.  But again...you refuse to own it.  I see liberals continually blaming the state...or saying Cooper "leans to the right"...which is nothing more than hypocrisy.  Accept responsibility and stop trying to place blame elsewhere.   Own it.  Clean it up.