Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:45 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,978
I agree that the elimination of redlining was a huge contributing factor to the economic collapse of 2008, if not the single most important factor. I also agree that redlining was racist.

I don't give a fuck if he's the devil if he's MY devil. Are you unaware that THEY currently have a devil of their own in the White House? Who's side are you on?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 02-13-2020 at 03:49 PM.
  #202  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:54 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,903
So, the government forced lenders to stop discriminating against black communities...and then lenders just had no choice but to victimize black communities with predatory loans? You're going to have to walk me through the logic on that one. No law was ever passed forcing banks to write mortgages for people who couldn't pay them.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 02-13-2020 at 03:55 PM.
  #203  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:56 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I'm pretty sure that you re-wrote that headline and I'm also pretty sure that Mr. Bloomberg didn't say or even imply what you said he said and/or implied.

Who's side are you on?
Waiting for an apology for the implied accusation of dishonesty here.
  #204  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:58 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,978
I hope you brought snacks.
  #205  
Old 02-13-2020, 04:12 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
You call those two things "un-nuanced." I say they are are a shorthand way of getting to the heart of the matter of what each intended. One had good intentions, the other did not. No matter how you try, you can't twist what Hitler did to compare it with Bloomberg.
...lets get to the heart of the matter. I believe that Hitler intended to "save lives" as much as Bloomberg intended to "save lives." Or to put it bluntly: I don't think Bloomberg was sincere and I don't believe he deserves any credit.

But you can ignore Hitler if you like. We never have to talk about Hitler ever again. Lets talk about the anti-vaxxer. Shouldn't anti-vaxxers get credit because they want to save lives? Its simple yes or no question.

Quote:
Are you going retract what you erroneously said about my post or not? We both agree that the way Bloomberg went about this was wrong. Stop and Frisk was wrong. You must know (don't you?) that when I'm talking about the science, it's about how you can reduce deaths from gun violence, not about Stop and Frisk per se.
Retract?

Show me a reputable scientist who would advocate stop and frisk as a way to reduce deaths from gun violence. Just one. Claiming that "fewer guns means fewer deaths" is "science" and that Bloomberg looked at "this science" and on the basis of "this science" decided to ramp up a racist discriminatory unconstitutional policy is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
  #206  
Old 02-13-2020, 05:40 PM
poweroftheglory is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 62
Bloomberg terrifies me far more than Trump being reelected. As bad as Trump is at least he is incompetent and lazy. Replacing Trump with a more competent racist right wing authoritarian is far more dire.
  #207  
Old 02-13-2020, 05:53 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,986

Moderating


Banquet Bear, Thing Fish, Snowboarder Bo, Carnalk, and anyone else involved in insults or catty remarks: back off. Keep the discussion focussed on Bloomberg and stop waving around claims about what others posted--especially refrain from choosing to "interpret" what other poster have said. Accusations of what your opponent "really" said and demands for apologies have no bearing on Bloomberg's candidacy. Take it to The BBQ Pit or e-mail.

[ /Moderating ]
  #208  
Old 02-13-2020, 08:51 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...lets get to the heart of the matter. I believe that Hitler intended to "save lives" as much as Bloomberg intended to "save lives." Or to put it bluntly: I don't think Bloomberg was sincere and I don't believe he deserves any credit.
Yes, I am aware of this. We disagree.

Quote:
But you can ignore Hitler if you like. We never have to talk about Hitler ever again. Lets talk about the anti-vaxxer. Shouldn't anti-vaxxers get credit because they want to save lives? Its simple yes or no question.
My apologies, but I told you how I feel about that analogy, and I don't think it applies. I have no desire to get into that for that reason.

Quote:
Retract?

Show me a reputable scientist who would advocate stop and frisk as a way to reduce deaths from gun violence. Just one. Claiming that "fewer guns means fewer deaths" is "science" and that Bloomberg looked at "this science" and on the basis of "this science" decided to ramp up a racist discriminatory unconstitutional policy is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
I guess I'm just not getting my point across. Let me try again. You made the anti-vax analogy, and I attempted to show you why I don't think it applies. Let me quote what I said then:

Quote:
Bloomberg, a long time advocate for gun control, looked at the science saying fewer guns means fewer deaths, and tried to get guns off the streets to save lives.
When I say the science, I am talking about how Bloomberg, a long time advocate for gun control, determined that the science, or research, if you like, said fewer guns means fewer deaths. Anti-vaxxers ignored science. To me, this refutes your analogy. But here is the key part: this is all that was necessary to refute your analogy (or at least I think so), and I did not intend in any way to suggest that Stop and Frisk was a good way to get guns off the streets. In fact, I've said numerous times that I think it was the wrong way. To be sure, I said "tried to get guns off the streets to save lives" in the above quote, but I should have left that out, because it obviously only confused the issue. Again, this was only about refuting, not about SaF

One more thing, and that is that you seem to be ignoring, again and again, that I don't like Stop and Frisk and never have, but you continually reply to me as if I was thought it was a good idea.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-13-2020 at 08:56 PM.
  #209  
Old 02-13-2020, 09:44 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,646
Perceptions of motivations matter to many voters.

The clip in which he said "Ninety-five percent of murders- murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16-25. That's true in New York, that's true in virtually every city." is read by many as something that should repel Black voters from him. And certainly some activists respond that way. But I think many Black voters actually see that as someone actually getting it: while so many politicians focus on the mass shootings that have killed some whites with assault weapons, he was stating loudly and clearly that the people dying from gun violence in this country most, without much public outcry, are young male Black victims killed by other young Black males with handguns. Something that relatively is being ignored even as outrage is expressed about much smaller numbers of white deaths.

If the perception is that his intent was to seriously address the typically relatively ignored very serious issue of urban gun deaths, typically one that is within minority communities, then he will get some positive credit even if the attempt was misguided and ended up having racist impacts.
  #210  
Old 02-13-2020, 10:19 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Perceptions of motivations matter to many voters.

The clip in which he said "Ninety-five percent of murders- murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16-25. That's true in New York, that's true in virtually every city." is read by many as something that should repel Black voters from him. And certainly some activists respond that way. But I think many Black voters actually see that as someone actually getting it: while so many politicians focus on the mass shootings that have killed some whites with assault weapons, he was stating loudly and clearly that the people dying from gun violence in this country most, without much public outcry, are young male Black victims killed by other young Black males with handguns. Something that relatively is being ignored even as outrage is expressed about much smaller numbers of white deaths.

If the perception is that his intent was to seriously address the typically relatively ignored very serious issue of urban gun deaths, typically one that is within minority communities, then he will get some positive credit even if the attempt was misguided and ended up having racist impacts.
One of the problems I’ve always had about the gun violence debate in the US was that it’s essentially been reframed as a white issue - right wing militias and suburban school shootings. Gun violence has always had an outsized impact on minorities that hasn’t been sufficiently addressed. I think it particularly resonates with middle-aged black women with children, who are (I think) pretty reliable voters.
  #211  
Old 02-13-2020, 10:22 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by poweroftheglory View Post
Bloomberg terrifies me far more than Trump being reelected. As bad as Trump is at least he is incompetent and lazy. Replacing Trump with a more competent racist right wing authoritarian is far more dire.
Bloomberg isn't really right wing though. At least not according to his policy positions. But who knows how much of that is just to get elected.

What scares me about Bloomberg is he shows just how powerful the corrupting influence of money is. You can buy hundreds of millions of dollars in ads, painting a very one sided picture and offering no solutions and still poll at 10-15%, higher than all but the front runners. Plus the media aren't critical of him while being overly critical of Sanders.

he got the DNC to change their rules to allow him to debate because of his money.

Plus Bloomberg has a history of offering financial incentives to build and break coalitions, or to gain support or stop criticisms of him.

He is basically showing first hand how billionaires can buy politics and he seems far more adept at it than the Koch brothers.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-13-2020 at 10:25 PM.
  #212  
Old 02-13-2020, 10:40 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
My apologies, but I told you how I feel about that analogy, and I don't think it applies. I have no desire to get into that for that reason.
...we are talking about motivation. If you give Bloomberg a pass because he wanted to "save the kids" then you give the anti-vaxxer the very same pass because they wanted to "save the kids" as well.

Quote:
I guess I'm just not getting my point across. Let me try again. You made the anti-vax analogy, and I attempted to show you why I don't think it applies. Let me quote what I said then:

When I say the science, I am talking about how Bloomberg, a long time advocate for gun control, determined that the science, or research, if you like, said fewer guns means fewer deaths. Anti-vaxxers ignored science. To me, this refutes your analogy. But here is the key part: this is all that was necessary to refute your analogy (or at least I think so), and I did not intend in any way to suggest that Stop and Frisk was a good way to get guns off the streets. In fact, I've said numerous times that I think it was the wrong way. To be sure, I said "tried to get guns off the streets to save lives" in the above quote, but I should have left that out, because it obviously only confused the issue. Again, this was only about refuting, not about SaF
I've still got nothing to retract. You've refuted nothing. Bringing the science of "gun control" into this debate is simply a distraction, a non-sequitur, simply another attempt by you to give Bloomberg a pass when he doesn't deserve one.

Quote:
One more thing, and that is that you seem to be ignoring, again and again, that I don't like Stop and Frisk and never have, but you continually reply to me as if I was thought it was a good idea.
Its not that you think stop and frisk was a good idea. Its that you are acting like stop and frisk was merely a misguided police tactic and that Bloomberg should get a pass and even get some credit because his motives were allegedly good. Thats what I'm challenging. Posted today:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Perryman
I want to speak less about Mayor Bloomberg and more about the program he misused and the people it impacted.

People often refer to #stopandfrisk as if it were simply a misguided police tactic. I believe they envision it as an unpleasant but brief encounter with the police.

...

The times that I witnessed it, multiple police cars would pull up, grab as many Black men as they could, and slam them against the wall. They would shout “shut the fuck up,” “get against the wall,” and other expletives. They would not ask questions.

They would search your pockets, push you around, and demean you the entire time. When they finished, they would threaten to be back and that they better not see you when they came back. This was said to actual residents of the neighborhood.

Imagine the affect that has on you in your own neighborhood knowing you can be stopped at any time for any reason by people empowered to use violence against you without repercussions. Imagine the terror and resentment that builds.

The interesting thing is I never witnessed them make an arrest because they never actually found anything. I believe that was because it wasn’t about finding anything. They knew these weren’t criminals. I would later discover that my anecdotal experiences would bear out in data.
https://twitter.com/SeanPerryman3/st...88707690545152

I mean DSeid even characterises stop and frisk as "misguided and ended up having racist impacts." You won't even mention the impact the policy had on hundreds of thousands of people. Are you wondering why I said before that "apparently black lives don't matter?" Because a racist fascist unconstitutional policy that terrorised communities of colour for a decade is being characterised as "misguided". As "having racist impacts." That we should give Bloomberg credit because he "wanted to save the kids." It wasn't merely misguided. It was anti-everything that America allegedly stands for. It didn't just have "racist impacts." It was racist from the get go. When it was declared unconstitutional by the courts Bloomberg continued to defend stop and frisk. He continued to defend it in 2015. He continued to defend it in January 2019. Why are people giving this man the time of day?
  #213  
Old 02-13-2020, 11:40 PM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,975
To me, this is a one issue race akin to anti-abortionists. This is not about party purity IMHO, but who can beat Trump?

Bloomberg is a smart guy who's platform revolutionized investment banking, has the war chest, has meaningful government experience (whether you agree or disagree with policies, at least he ran NY City), has some policy things I like regarding big money and wall street, and will stop the fiscal incontinence of the deficits only matter when it's a Democrat in the White House. On top of all that, it appears deeply personal between Bloomberg and Trump, and Bloomberg knows how to get under Trump's skin at least as well as Pelosi.

Bloomberg needs the right VEEP. A woman that is also a person of color is good marketing, and given mikey's age, provide hope for a woman to finally crack that highest glass ceiling.

Biden is a has been that never was. Seriously, he never came close in his previous runs for the White House, so I'm mystified why folks think he is credible now. And, while Hunter didn't do anything illegal (I think), the optics are terrible and a decade or so ago would have disqualified his father.

Bernie has his dedicated core of maybe 25% of the democratic electorate vs Trump with at least 30% of the total electorate. Haven't seen any sign that Bernie can beat Trump like a drum.

Klobochar is too unknown and not raising the money needed. Plus, I don't think she has broad appeal across the country.

Pete is very impressive but young. Much more someone to get a cabinet position and make a another run in 4, 8, 12 years. Pete can out debate trump, but won't out twitter him, and that will cost votes.

But at the end of the day, I would vote for a small soap dish as an alternative to trump. So, whoever it is, they will have my support and my vote.
  #214  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:08 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
To me, this is a one issue race akin to anti-abortionists. This is not about party purity IMHO, but who can beat Trump?
...the polls say all of the front runners can beat Trump. Are you guaranteeing that a Bloomberg nomination is the only candidate who will beat Trump?

This isn't "one issue." This isn't about "purity." I'm pointing out the obvious. But it isn't the only thing. If you could assure me that Bloomberg was the only candidate capable of defeating Trump then you might have a point.
  #215  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:39 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...the polls say all of the front runners can beat Trump. ...
Head to head polls are at this point still worth very little. To the degree they are worth something the bigger the cushion the better. (And Bloomberg does slightly better.)

The argument is based on which theory you subscribe to.

Sanders is the drive up excitement and turnout of younger progressives theory. And appeal to the Obama/Trump voters who are motivated by voting for disruptive change.

That theory could have merit and win the presidency. If he is the nominee I very much hope it does! But it has less potential merit in helping out in critical Senate races.


The Bloomberg theory relies on his alliances with mayors to get out the city vote, running up numbers there, winning the suburbs more solidly, and winning the Romney Republicans and Independents all the way over.

That theory could have merit and win the presidency. And seems more likely to me to have the desired Senate results.


To me the other issue is who is more likely to actually make any progress on any of the items in the Democratic wishlist if elected. Sanders has a poor record of actually getting shit done. Bloomberg knows how to make the business case for the items that might actually get some bipartisan support.
  #216  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:48 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Bloomberg knows how to make the business case for the items that might actually get some bipartisan support.
...Bloomberg supports racist fascist policies, is a misogynistic arsehole, and is unlikely to govern any differently if elected to be president of the United States. You've already got Trump. Bloomberg is a more intelligent Trump with a filter. He would obviously be better than Trump and if he is the nominee then everyone should get out to vote for him. But he deserves all the scrutiny that Kamala got for "being a cop" and that Warren got on "how to pay for her healthcare policies." Stop and frisk should be disqualifying and that it isn't says a lot about how important black lives are in America today.

The only theory I subscribe to is my personal "chaos theory." And what we have right now: with Bloomberg essentially attempting to buy the nomination, is a huge injection of chaos into an already impossibly chaotic system. When you add in what Bloomberg is doing with what the Russians are doing, propaganda from the White House, disinformation campaigns, a disinterested media, along with algorithms gone wild, nobody knows how the next election is going to go. So you should vote for the person who you think would be the next best President of the United States. Not the person you think might get the most votes or the person that you guess might push them over the edge in the states that matter.
  #217  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:02 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I agree that the elimination of redlining was a huge contributing factor to the economic collapse of 2008, if not the single most important factor.
It's over a decade since the collapse, and this is the first time I'm even hearing this claim. I rather think it needs substantiation.
Quote:
I don't give a fuck if he's the devil if he's MY devil. Are you unaware that THEY currently have a devil of their own in the White House? Who's side are you on?
1) Atrios, yesterday:
Quote:
One of my Great Insights in life has been that too many people who you would like to thing would know better are quite happy putting a bastard in charge as long as he's "our bastard." The thing is, even if that was defensible it never works out that way. Bastards are not "our" bastards, they're just bastards.
This. Make him President, and he'll do whatever he wants with the powers of the office, combined with the power of his money to move recalcitrant Congresspersons.

He's likely to be a less awful bastard than Trump, but he won't be 'our' bastard. He'll be his own bastard.

2) Whose, not "who's".
  #218  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:16 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...we are talking about motivation. If you give Bloomberg a pass because he wanted to "save the kids" then you give the anti-vaxxer the very same pass because they wanted to "save the kids" as well.
I didn't respond when I first read it, because I thought it was a bad analogy. But you brought it up again, so I read it again. Still thought so. The point is, I gave your argument the courtesy of consideration. I'm not sure you do the same for me. To wit:

Quote:
I've still got nothing to retract. You've refuted nothing. Bringing the science of "gun control" into this debate is simply a distraction, a non-sequitur, simply another attempt by you to give Bloomberg a pass when he doesn't deserve one.
You ignore the point, once again, the one thing I came into this discussion to for. If Bloomberg had a good reason to think that taking guns of the street would reduce lives, gun control is far from being a non-sequitur as to what I claim Bloomberg wanted to do. It is literally the thing that would stop what Bloomberg wanted to stop: death in the streets. You think it's a non-sequitur because it doesn't acknowledge the wrongness of stop and frisk, but for the last and final time, I've done that.

Quote:
I mean DSeid even characterises stop and frisk as "misguided and ended up having racist impacts." You won't even mention the impact the policy had on hundreds of thousands of people. Are you wondering why I said before that "apparently black lives don't matter?" Because a racist fascist unconstitutional policy that terrorised communities of colour for a decade is being characterised as "misguided". As "having racist impacts." That we should give Bloomberg credit because he "wanted to save the kids." It wasn't merely misguided. It was anti-everything that America allegedly stands for. It didn't just have "racist impacts." It was racist from the get go. When it was declared unconstitutional by the courts Bloomberg continued to defend stop and frisk. He continued to defend it in 2015. He continued to defend it in January 2019. Why are people giving this man the time of day?
Bold: You keep bringing this up, because it allows you to pretend I don't care about it, and gives you an excuse not to respond to my initial point. As for the rest of that quote, you must be responding to someone else, because, for example, I have never said it wasn't "anti-everything that America allegedly stands for". I never said it wasn't unconstitutional. Finally, I've said repeatedly I think Stop and Frisk was wrong. Can you please acknowledge that just once in this thread? If you choose not to, that's fine, because I've said all I can say on this.
  #219  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:22 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
...But I think many Black voters actually see that as someone actually getting it: while so many politicians focus on the mass shootings that have killed some whites with assault weapons, he was stating loudly and clearly that the people dying from gun violence in this country most, without much public outcry, are young male Black victims killed by other young Black males with handguns. Something that relatively is being ignored even as outrage is expressed about much smaller numbers of white deaths.
Precisely. To me, that shows he cares about solving the problem, even if stop and frisk was the wrong way to go about it.
  #220  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:27 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
... Bloomberg is a more intelligent Trump with a filter. ...
One who strongly believes that Climate Change is crisis for the world and has backed that belief up with action. One who has fought for real immigration reform with a path to citizenship for years. One whose WHO partnered Tobacco Control initiative has likely saved immeasurable lives in low and middle income countries worldwide. One who think Obamacare was a great accomplishment that can be built on with expansion of a public option as the next step. One who would nominate judges who are not toadies of the right. One who believes in promoting gun control as a matter of public health and who has fought hard to deliver on it.

If that is "a Trump" to you, then you have an assessment of Trump that is out of keeping with reality.
  #221  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:01 AM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
To me, this is a one issue race akin to anti-abortionists. This is not about party purity IMHO, but who can beat Trump?

Bloomberg is a smart guy who's platform revolutionized investment banking, has the war chest, has meaningful government experience (whether you agree or disagree with policies, at least he ran NY City), has some policy things I like regarding big money and wall street, and will stop the fiscal incontinence of the deficits only matter when it's a Democrat in the White House. On top of all that, it appears deeply personal between Bloomberg and Trump, and Bloomberg knows how to get under Trump's skin at least as well as Pelosi.

Bloomberg needs the right VEEP. A woman that is also a person of color is good marketing, and given mikey's age, provide hope for a woman to finally crack that highest glass ceiling.

Biden is a has been that never was. Seriously, he never came close in his previous runs for the White House, so I'm mystified why folks think he is credible now. And, while Hunter didn't do anything illegal (I think), the optics are terrible and a decade or so ago would have disqualified his father.

Bernie has his dedicated core of maybe 25% of the democratic electorate vs Trump with at least 30% of the total electorate. Haven't seen any sign that Bernie can beat Trump like a drum.

Klobochar is too unknown and not raising the money needed. Plus, I don't think she has broad appeal across the country.

Pete is very impressive but young. Much more someone to get a cabinet position and make a another run in 4, 8, 12 years. Pete can out debate trump, but won't out twitter him, and that will cost votes.

But at the end of the day, I would vote for a small soap dish as an alternative to trump. So, whoever it is, they will have my support and my vote.
We are in an age when a lot of people in both parties realize that politics has been bought and sold by the wealthy. For a wealthy billionaire to swoop in and buy the nomination is going to cause a lot of backlash.

I don't think Bloomberg is the best candidate to beat Trump because him winning the nomination will deeply demoralize voters who want to get money out of politics.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #222  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:31 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
... But I think many Black voters actually see that as someone actually getting it: while so many politicians focus on the mass shootings that have killed some whites with assault weapons, he was stating loudly and clearly that the people dying from gun violence in this country most, without much public outcry, are young male Black victims killed by other young Black males with handguns. [sgs7 added emphasis] Something that relatively is being ignored even as outrage is expressed about much smaller numbers of white deaths.
Thank you, DSeid. I've laughed when this point arises in debates here: right-wingers raise this correct point; others accuse them of racism.

What are the stats on gun control advocacy? Am I correct that blacks are more likely than whites to favor gun control? And — [septimus dons asbestos suit] — one approach to getting illegal guns off the street is to target ... people likely to be carrying illegal guns!
  #223  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:25 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,115
I agree there is something troubling about Bloomberg's rise powered by massive amounts of money. I have to think that his momentum will slow down dramatically once his record is examined more carefully. Aside from stop-and-frisk there are the sexual harassment lawsuits against his company and his large donations to Republicans. It would be rather absurd for the Democrats to nominate someone who endorsed George W Bush over Kerry in 2004. I also don't think he would be a strong general election bet either. He would attract moderates but repel progressives and minorities and given his positions on gun control some working class whites as well. He is also a thoroughly mediocre speaker.
  #224  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:39 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
I agree there is something troubling about Bloomberg's rise powered by massive amounts of money. I have to think that his momentum will slow down dramatically once his record is examined more carefully. Aside from stop-and-frisk there are the sexual harassment lawsuits against his company and his large donations to Republicans. It would be rather absurd for the Democrats to nominate someone who endorsed George W Bush over Kerry in 2004. I also don't think he would be a strong general election bet either. He would attract moderates but repel progressives and minorities and given his positions on gun control some working class whites as well. He is also a thoroughly mediocre speaker.
I am rather confident stop and frisk will not be a big liability. I think a lot of people will think it a misguided "tough on crime" policy rather than "I want to put black people in jail" policy certain people in this thread are trying to characterize it as.

And I don't think the party line crossing is an issue for really anyone but the hardcore party members.
  #225  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:40 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
It's over a decade since the collapse, and this is the first time I'm even hearing this claim. I rather think it needs substantiation.
Well you should get to work on that, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
1) Atrios, yesterday: This. Make him President, and he'll do whatever he wants with the powers of the office, combined with the power of his money to move recalcitrant Congresspersons.

He's likely to be a less awful bastard than Trump, but he won't be 'our' bastard. He'll be his own bastard.
First, I don't know (or care) who Atrios is and why I should give a fuck about what they wrote. But regarding what you posted: yeah; no shit, Sherlock. If the alternative is Trump, whose side are you on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
2) Whose, not "who's".
DYAC!

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 02-14-2020 at 10:41 AM.
  #226  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:44 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
You know, this isn't the official Dem HQ forums, could you drop the "whose side are you on" shit? People can discuss their actual opinions, not just shut up and line up.
  #227  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:46 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
We are in an age when a lot of people in both parties realize that politics has been bought and sold by the wealthy. For a wealthy billionaire to swoop in and buy the nomination is going to cause a lot of backlash.
This is a stupid and unfounded assertion. Were you not here in 2016? Or is it just a weekly Lame Democratic Talking Point, and that's why Joe Biden said something similar yesterday?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I don't think Bloomberg is the best candidate to beat Trump because him winning the nomination will deeply demoralize voters who want to get money out of politics.
Those voters are largely dead or have been bought off.
  #228  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:47 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You know, this isn't the official Dem HQ forums, could you drop the "whose side are you on" shit? People can discuss their actual opinions, not just shut up and line up.
No. Feel free to discuss your opinions; there's no reason not to.

But Democrats tearing down Democrats is stupid, counter-productive and a losing strategy IMO and I'll continue to call it out when I feel it's necessary.

The goal is "Trump is not re-elected". All other goals are secondary at the moment.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 02-14-2020 at 10:49 AM.
  #229  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:01 AM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
One who strongly believes that Climate Change is crisis for the world and has backed that belief up with action. One who has fought for real immigration reform with a path to citizenship for years. One whose WHO partnered Tobacco Control initiative has likely saved immeasurable lives in low and middle income countries worldwide. One who think Obamacare was a great accomplishment that can be built on with expansion of a public option as the next step. One who would nominate judges who are not toadies of the right. One who believes in promoting gun control as a matter of public health and who has fought hard to deliver on it.

If that is "a Trump" to you, then you have an assessment of Trump that is out of keeping with reality.
Right. This nonsense (and I've seen it on Twitter as well) that Bloomberg is basically Trump just makes the speaker seem so ridiculous that there is no reason to continue to listen to them. Because since when did Trump care about climate change or gun control or a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants or expanding health care coverage?
  #230  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:10 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
And I don't think the party line crossing is an issue for really anyone but the hardcore party members.
From the Democratic perspective thinking that George W Bush would make a better President than Kerry in 2004 would seem a rather colossal misjudgement. Someone who made this misjudgement is likely to make all sorts of bad decisions and appointments especially in areas like national security and regulation where Presidents do have a lot of leeway. Bloomberg is also terrible on financial regulation where his views are exactly what you would expect of a Wall Street billionaire. If he becomes President there is every possibility of a weakening of financial regulations which would make a new crisis more likely in the future.

He really would be a terrible pick from a Democratic perspective. Perhaps it would make sense as a desperation move if he was the only person who could beat Trump but I see no evidence of this and there are obvious weaknesses that he would have both from a turnout and persuasasion perspective. Do you really think he will inspire minority voters or persuade the white working class?
  #231  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:12 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I am rather confident stop and frisk will not be a big liability. I think a lot of people will think it a misguided "tough on crime" policy rather than "I want to put black people in jail" policy certain people in this thread are trying to characterize it as.

And I don't think the party line crossing is an issue for really anyone but the hardcore party members.
But Democratic primary voters often resemble the 'certain people in this thread' you're talking about even if general election voters more rarely do. So if you mean SAF and party switching would not be giant issues in general election if Bloomberg were somehow Democratic nominee I agree. To get to the nomination though both could be serious problems, and the first one amped up by recently (re)publicized audio of Bloomberg talking about the issue in his often imperious style (which is another liability of his generally, he's not a complete asshole like Trump, but he does obviously think quite well of himself). Nor has he deflected it well so far that I've seen, a clip of him answering it 'that was 5 yrs ago'... 5yrs isn't very long ago when you're 78, and he's running in part on his mayoralty starting 18 yrs ago.

Once you get to a general election a lot of voters even who'd vote Democratic might think of SAF as a *non* misguided tough on crime policy with no scare quotes. But it's much more of a problem in the base politics of a Democratic primary, again especially being on tape talking about it in quasi-Trumpian terms ('throw them up against the wall' by Bloomberg is reminiscent of Trump's 'don't be careful with their heads when you put them in the squad car' and Trump didn't even specify African American suspects in that particular comment which Bloomberg did).

Last edited by Corry El; 02-14-2020 at 11:12 AM.
  #232  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:27 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Well you should get to work on that, then.
Why should I look for a cite to prove your claim isn't bullshit?

Maybe you're in the wrong forum.
Quote:
First, I don't know (or care) who Atrios is and why I should give a fuck about what they wrote.
Used to be this thing called the 'blogosphere.' Rumor has it it's still out there.

Atrios (Duncan Black) has been one of the best-known bloggers in the lefty blogoshere - you know, 'our' side - since the early 2000s. Even gets the occasional guest op-ed in places like USA Today.
Quote:
But regarding what you posted: yeah; no shit, Sherlock. If the alternative is Trump, whose side are you on?
Truth. Justice. The American way.

I summed up my thoughts about Bloomberg earlier in this thread like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
[Bloomberg's] a racist, sexist asshole who shares our opinion about climate change, and may well be the Dem with the best chance of beating Trump.

I'm willing to dance with the devil if that's what it takes to save the world my son will spend his life in. And it may come down to that.
But I'm not going to go around sugar-coating him or his record just to make myself feel better.

If you want to do that, knock yourself out, do your quarry thing, whatever. I certainly can't stop you.
  #233  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:48 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
@Corry El
Well, I certainly agree it's likely to be a bigger deal in the primaries. However, I'm looking at turnout in NH. I can't find a % turnout but between the Dems and Republicans, there were 450k votes in the two primaries with a population of 1.3M -- that's not all party activists.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-14-2020 at 11:49 AM.
  #234  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:47 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
No. Feel free to discuss your opinions; there's no reason not to.

But Democrats tearing down Democrats is stupid, counter-productive and a losing strategy IMO and I'll continue to call it out when I feel it's necessary.

The goal is "Trump is not re-elected". All other goals are secondary at the moment.
1. Gosh, thanks for your permission.

2. I'm an independent and Bloomberg is a Republican fat cat so we all good there.

3. Maybe that's YOUR goal but I aim a little higher than "a bit less shit in this sammich I expect you to eat."

I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg if he paid me--which, given his history with women and his current tactics, might actually be in the cards. I'm old fashioned though, and actually believe some things should not be and are not for sale. YMObvouslyV.

Last edited by SmartAleq; 02-14-2020 at 12:48 PM.
  #235  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:12 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 465
So an oligarch can buy your election and you quibble and quote post each other?

This Bloom man has enough money to employ shit posters galore.

Galore.
  #236  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:35 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,731
Buying the election is absolutely what this ratfuck is trying to do. I mean, LITERALLY paying cash money for Insta mentions, among his more traditional methods. Read it and weep.
  #237  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:52 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,659
The GOP is very much wounded right now. They've dug themselves into a hole that has left everyone but the true believers shaking their heads in disbelief.

Electing Bernie now would be like giving them a standing eight count. They would regroup, catch their breath, and come out more batshit energized than ever in 2022 and 2024. Nothing would get accomplished in Bernie's first two years, and the GOP would have a boogie man far scarier than they ever painted Barack Obama. And boom, the GOP is back in business.

There's less likelihood of that happening with someone like Bloomberg, imo. Plus, Dems have a better chance of keeping the House and even taking the Senate with Bloomberg as the nominee. Vulnerable purple and red state/district Dems are extremely nervous over a Sanders nomination. They, and we, should be. They're more likely to lose reelection if Bernie's the victor.

I want massive, devastating damage to the GOP. Bernie's victory would give the GOP new energy. Bloomberg's victory, on the other hand and imo, does much more punishing damage to the party of fascist lunatics.

Is Bloomberg flawed? Hell yeah. So is Bernie. So are a lot of previous presidents (even the ones regarded as "good" or "great.") But despite his flaws, even the ones that have been condemned as racist, Blooms seems the best equipped to do some serious damage to the Cult of Trump. The African-American voters and electeds lining up with him seem to agree.

Four more years of President Trump would be far worse than even Bloomberg's worst shit he did in the past. I also believe a Sanders presidency wouldn't do enough to move the GOP into the dumpster of history, while an seasoned, pragmatic, moderate and yes, well-funded leader like Bloomberg would.

Will I still vote for Bernie if he's the nominee? With absolute relish and joy in my heart. But it's far from my ideal.
  #238  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:59 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 465
Up is down, left is right. People not dying from lack of health care in the richest country in the world is great.

Talk yourself into voting for a billionaire.
  #239  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:15 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,388
The main advantage that I see Bloomburg having, is that he will be much harder for Trump and the Republicans to attack that the other potential candidates, because all of his faults and flaws (of which there are many well documented in this thread) are also exhibited by Trump to a larger and more obvious degree. Sure they can rely on a double standard, IOKIARDI, but it isn't a broad topic like socialism where there is a clear distinction between the two sides. Chances are they will try to lead with gun control, but Its not clear that that works entirely in their favor. The most e3ffective line of attack is to rely on disaffection and targeted disinformation to suppress the Democratic vote with the bothsideism expressed by SmartAleq and others.

At this point I'm thinking of just sitting out on the primary, all of the remaining Democratic candidates have flaws that I find greatly concerning in terms of character, policy, or elecaibility. So I may just let those who actually have strong feelings one way or another make the choice.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 02-14-2020 at 02:17 PM.
  #240  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:19 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 465
SDMB judging what is easy to attack is not a good idea. We are fuckwits in that sense. Just go with policy.

Also Bloom is short and seems rapey. So easy.
  #241  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:32 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I didn't respond when I first read it, because I thought it was a bad analogy. But you brought it up again, so I read it again. Still thought so. The point is, I gave your argument the courtesy of consideration. I'm not sure you do the same for me. To wit:
...is this a "yes" you are giving the anti-vaxxer a pass or a "no" you aren't giving the anti-vaxxer a pass?

Quote:
You ignore the point, once again, the one thing I came into this discussion to for.
If you only came into this discussion to make a single point, why are you arguing so many other points?

Quote:
If Bloomberg had a good reason to think that taking guns of the street would reduce lives, gun control is far from being a non-sequitur as to what I claim Bloomberg wanted to do.
It is a non-sequitur if you claim that "he looked at the science" when that science was "fewer guns means fewer deaths." You appear to have retracted that now.

Quote:
It is literally the thing that would stop what Bloomberg wanted to stop: death in the streets. You think it's a non-sequitur because it doesn't acknowledge the wrongness of stop and frisk, but for the last and final time, I've done that.
I'm not giving Bloomberg any credit for continuing a racist policy that terrorised black communities just because he wanted to stop "death in the streets." You do want to give him credit for that. That's all I'm saying. Do you think I'm wrong to not give him credit for that?

Quote:
Bold: You keep bringing this up, because it allows you to pretend I don't care about it, and gives you an excuse not to respond to my initial point. As for the rest of that quote, you must be responding to someone else, because, for example, I have never said it wasn't "anti-everything that America allegedly stands for". I never said it wasn't unconstitutional. Finally, I've said repeatedly I think Stop and Frisk was wrong. Can you please acknowledge that just once in this thread? If you choose not to, that's fine, because I've said all I can say on this.
Everybody in this thread acknowledges that stop and frisk was wrong. I'm more than happy to acknowledge that you think stop and frisk was wrong. But do you think it was so wrong that it should disqualify Bloomberg from the nomination for President? And if not, then why should a man who terrorised people of colour for a decade deserve a vote?
  #242  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:42 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 465
Does anyone have figures for how much people can get paid (potentially) for doing online work for Bloom?

Some cash to posters could help to muddy the waters on his racist past.

I have heard it is the thousands.

Oligarchs will oligarch.
  #243  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:49 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I want massive, devastating damage to the GOP. Bernie's victory would give the GOP new energy. Bloomberg's victory, on the other hand and imo, does much more punishing damage to the party of fascist lunatics.
Electing a racist authoritarian oligarch who's trying to buy the election in order to fight 'fascist lunatics' seems counterproductive. We're talking about a man who willfully defied a court order by sending a night time paramilitary raid against protestors and journalists when he had the power to do so. Oh, and just as icing on the cake he was a big supporter of Gulf War I. If the democrats are dumb enough to run Trump lite against Trump, I'm certainly not going to vote for him.
  #244  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:00 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Electing a racist authoritarian oligarch who's trying to buy the election in order to fight 'fascist lunatics' seems counterproductive. We're talking about a man who willfully defied a court order by sending a night time paramilitary raid against protestors and journalists when he had the power to do so. Oh, and just as icing on the cake he was a big supporter of Gulf War I. If the democrats are dumb enough to run Trump lite against Trump, I'm certainly not going to vote for him.

Wonderful. Let me make a mental note. Aaaaaand...done.
  #245  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:12 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
One who strongly believes that Climate Change is crisis for the world and has backed that belief up with action. One who has fought for real immigration reform with a path to citizenship for years. One whose WHO partnered Tobacco Control initiative has likely saved immeasurable lives in low and middle income countries worldwide. One who think Obamacare was a great accomplishment that can be built on with expansion of a public option as the next step. One who would nominate judges who are not toadies of the right. One who believes in promoting gun control as a matter of public health and who has fought hard to deliver on it.
...and one who defended a racist policy that terrorised hundreds of thousands of people of colour for a decade. Don't forget that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew J Padilla
I quickly raised my hands, so did my boy. My other boy, a bit ahead of us, did not raise his hands. He was nervous. He reached into his pocket to try and show the police where his ID was. The cop proceeded to point his gun at my friend's spine. "PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR"

I told my friend, "Bro put your hands up, or we're gonna be on the news, just put your hands up!" We all knew one wrong move, and we could be killed.

"Hospital is only a couple of blocks away," the officer told my friend as he began to frisk him.

After the officer had stopped & frisked us, emptied all our pockets, he told us, "My friends are on their way. Gonna need a bigger car." We assumed we were getting arrested. He ran our ID's to see if we had priors. We did not.

What were we doing in the park at night you may ask?

Hangin. Chillin. Enjoying a nice night. Same way white kids in the suburbs do in their backyards at night. Only we didn't have back yards. NYC was our backyard.

I asked the officer WHY he'd stopped us.

Cop told us: "You guys fit the description."

After threatening to shoot us? The cop randomly decided to let us go. It confused the hell out of us. An officer drew a gun at our backs without even saying "police." If we'd ran? He could have killed us! Once he stopped us? He could have killed us! The cop had a gun; we did not.
https://twitter.com/apadillafilm6/st...11660717236224

Not an isolated story. Hundreds of thousands of people share that story. Do you really think that because a belief in climate change is enough to overcome a legacy that traumatised hundreds of thousands of people? I'll say it again: its almost as if those lives don't matter. You are crafting a narrative that removes them from the story. Climate change. Obamacare. Judges. Just keep pretending Bloomberg never did this and hopefully nobody will remember.

Quote:
If that is "a Trump" to you, then you have an assessment of Trump that is out of keeping with reality.
I had conceded that "Trump is worse." I had conceded that if Bloomberg were to get the nomination that everyone should support him. You removed the context of what I said by snipping all of that from your quote. You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with a strawman of your own creation. Having said that Bloomberg is a racist misogynist, just like Trump. Bloomberg supported a racist unconstitutional fascist policy that terrorised and traumatised communities of colour. That matters more to me than his position on climate change.

But all of the other candidates, even the ones I actively loath like Mayor Pete, don't have this legacy. They don't have the same history of racism, the same history of misogyny, none of them are trying to buy the election. All of them have great policy on climate change, all of them would nominate judges who wouldn't be toadies on the right. You don't have to vote for the racist misogynist who terrorised and traumatized black communities for a decade and is trying to buy an election.
  #246  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:20 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
Right. This nonsense (and I've seen it on Twitter as well) that Bloomberg is basically Trump just makes the speaker seem so ridiculous that there is no reason to continue to listen to them. Because since when did Trump care about climate change or gun control or a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants or expanding health care coverage?
...hey! I'm right here! You can debate me directly if you like. There is plenty of context missing from the snippet that DSeid chose to argue with. I added additional context in my last post. Do you think supporting climate change and gun control is enough to overlook Bloomberg's legacy of supporting a racist unconstitutional policy that terrorised and traumatized hundreds of thousands of people of colour?
  #247  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:37 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...hey! I'm right here! You can debate me directly if you like. There is plenty of context missing from the snippet that DSeid chose to argue with. I added additional context in my last post. Do you think supporting climate change and gun control is enough to overlook Bloomberg's legacy of supporting a racist unconstitutional policy that terrorised and traumatized hundreds of thousands of people of colour?
Yes, and combined with the fact that Bloomberg has the potential to curb-stomp Trump into the New York sewer system, yes again.

Bloomberg's terribly flawed, but some of us don't have the privilege of living on the other side of the planet where you can stomp your foot on the Internet about one damn issue over and over and over and over and over, and then potentially watch another (possibly weaker) candidate either 1) lose to Trump this fall, or 2) further empower the GOP in the House and/or Senate, and then shrug our shoulders and say "...Oh well...better luck...next time...!"

I appreciate honest debate, and Bloomberg wasn't my first choice (for many, many reason) so I can understand some nuanced debate around picking the Dem nominee. I've gone back and forth, and fully appreciated input from all sides over the past year, and still appreciate hearing from many people in this thread. But at this point you're barely debating any more, just self-righteously brow-beating.
  #248  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:40 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,731
If this country is stupid enough to vote for fascist billionaires then it deserves what it gets. I will not vote for Bloomberg or Trump or any other corporatist neoliberal centrist Third Way scumbag. I'll write in Bernie or vote Green like I did last time and y'all can enjoy the results of your equivocating and pontificating on matters you have less than no knowledge of. Same if this country is willing to hold still AGAIN while oligarchs ratfuck whatever paltry remains of our once democratic society survived 2016. I cordially invite all those who can and do say with a straight face "VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO OMG ONOZ ELEVENTY!!1!" to go squat in their living room Laz-E-Boys and wait for the general because your input is unnecessary and will only get in the way of those trying to actually make a fucking difference. This isn't a fucking game, and "defeating TEH ENEMEEE" is not what it's about and if you don't know the difference then sit down and go back to watching Fox or MSDNC or whatever brand of poison pablum you prefer.
  #249  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:09 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Bloomberg's terribly flawed, but some of us don't have the privilege of living on the other side of the planet where you can stomp your foot on the Internet about one damn issue over and over and over and over and over, and then potentially watch another (possibly weaker) candidate either 1) lose to Trump this fall, or 2) further empower the GOP in the House and/or Senate, and then shrug our shoulders and say "...Oh well...better luck...next time...!"
...yet you've fail to acknowledge the extraordinary privilege you are displaying here. You can pretend that stop and frisk didn't happen. You want us to ignore the legacy, ignore the trauma, pretend that this didn't really happen. It's how America works. It took a television show (Watchman) to bring "Black Wall Street" to the public's consciousness. Sweeping the trauma of black people under the rug is what America does best and its doing it again here.

I'm stomping my foot on the internet about one damn issue over and over and over and over because ya'll want to elect someone who supported a racist fascist unconstitutional policy that terrorised and traumatized communities of colour for a decade. I might live in New Zealand but I share something with those communities: the colour of my skin. You are erasing Bloomberg's racist legacy while giving me a lecture me about privilege. The irony.

Quote:
I appreciate honest debate, and Bloomberg wasn't my first choice (for many, many reason) so I can understand some nuanced debate around picking the Dem nominee. I've gone back and forth, and fully appreciated input from all sides over the past year, and still appreciate hearing from many people in this thread. But at this point you're barely debating any more, just self-righteously brow-beating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Oh goodie, Hitler's arrived.
I'm not sure you the best person to complain that "I'm barely debating any more" considering that this was the only other post in this thread where you engaged with me. You haven't actually debated any of my positions here. You've just complained that I live on the other side of the planet.

But here's an important thing to remember: the biggest threat in my opinion to global stability is the United States of America. The next election isn't just about Americans. If Trump wins again America is fucked. FUCKED. It will slide into authoritarianism. It will destabilise regions. It will affect me. But I don't get a vote. So I have every right to participate in this debate.
  #250  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:29 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The main advantage that I see Bloomburg having, is that he will be much harder for Trump and the Republicans to attack that the other potential candidates, because all of his faults and flaws (of which there are many well documented in this thread) are also exhibited by Trump to a larger and more obvious degree.
... Chances are they will try to lead with gun control, but Its not clear that that works entirely in their favor.
I don't agree. I mentioned before that Bloomberg had a (Democratic primary) problem sounding like Trump on his SAF audio comments. But generally Bloomberg is not much like Trump. The big lane of attack v Bloomberg by Trump is 'nanny state'. That's embodied in gun control and his particular approach and rhetoric on it (something much harder to attack Sanders on because as after all a politician from a pro-gun state, he's never talked about it that much). But goes beyond that issue. In fact the attitude of Bloomberg on the tape that he's 'saving black lives' with SAF is similar to the one that will piss off a lot of general election voters on 'nanny state liberal' issues like guns, soda and so forth. That Mike knows what's good for you.

For all Trump's shortcomings that's not him. Nor is it that the way to attack Sanders really either. Sanders goes big (left) on ideas. Trump/Sanders would be a more straight up ideological battle with the heretofore non-ideological Trump trying to play defender of the basic free market system. I don't know who that would work out better for, but I disagree there's little to attack Bloomberg on.

Keeping in mind also Bloomberg is a 100% real billionaire who *is* seeking to 'buy the office'. Which is also not Trump.

IMO the remaining at all likely candidate hardest to attack is clearly Klobuchar not Bloomberg. I can see the attack on her in a primary setting ('we need stronger conviction, and fewer platitudes about reaching out to the incorrigible GOP who will never compromise anyway', etc). I don't see what could captivate the general electorate in terms of more personal attack on K. Yells at her staff? That's pretty minor at that stage of the game. She's basically 'generic Democrat', might lack the positive inspiration to a 'following' like Sanders has, but the personal focus of Klobuchar/Trump would tend to be on Trump, which isn't good for him.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017