And if Bloomberg gets the nom, I really don’t give a shit.
No, a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. I stand firm on the principle that nobody is entitled to my vote.
No, a vote for anyone other than the DNC nominee is a vote for Trump.
[ul][li]If you vote for the DNC nominee, it is less likely that Trump will win. A vote for the DNC nominee, whoever he or she is, is a vote against Trump.[/li][li]If you refuse to vote, you are effectively voting for Trump because Trump will have one more vote than the DNC nominee.[/li][li]If you vote for a third-party candidate, then you are effectively voting for Trump because Trump will have one more vote than the DNC nominee.[/ul][/li]
It’s too bad, but we live in the real world. In the real world, when there are only two choices, you vote against the person you don’t want. If you don’t vote for the only alternative, then you are effectively voting for Trump. And he counts on that.
(Of course, many votes don’t count. In my native California or my current Washington, it doesn’t matter who I vote for because the DNC nominee will win the electoral votes here anyway. Not every voter has that luxury.)
Additionally, by sitting-out the election, you wont have the opportunity to vote on down-ballot candidates and local initiatives that may impact you even more than POTUS. If you care about those, and you are going to vote anyway, why not pull the lever for not-Trump?
I remember some asking this board if the Dems could ever elect a Trump equivalent .
Pretty much everyone said: “No of course not!”. Man, has this thread proved them hilariously wrong.
What everyone here expect you is saying is: “Bloomberg sucks but he’s not as bad as Trump.” They are not equivalent.
If you want to argue that Bloomberg is a functionally illiterate conman, in cahoots with foreign governments, actively undermining our institutions and the rule of law, and motivated by overt white supremacism, go ahead. I think you’ll find that a minority view though.
Bolding mine
You sure you don’t want to amend your words there?
Anyway, a “Dem equivalent” isn’t going to be a Trump clone. A Dem equivalent is going to look like MB. And it can only go downhill from there if we’re not careful.
Yes I’m sure. I hate hate hate Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a garden variety racist, and stop and frisk was a horrible racist policy. But equating that to issuing blanket immigration blocks and separating families in concentration camps is just lazy.
Nor did you address any of the other qualities I pointed to as differentiating Trump and Bloomberg. Again, lazy.
Nope. Will pick one of the third parties, probably Libertarian (IIRC they’re the only ones who actually get on my ballot). And no, you don’t get to redefine words such that ‘voting for anyone but the person I want you to counts as voting for this other person’, I’m using ordinary English not JohnnyLAese. Transparent language games are not going to convince me to vote for either of the bigoted authoritarian billionaires who are running.
I wouldn’t say voting third party is voting for Trump, but if you are someone who opposes Trump but you refuse to vote for Trump’s democratic opponent and Trump wins, you shouldn’t blame anyone else for the result.
Actively undermining our institutions and the rule of law is what Bloomberg did both as Mayor (Stop and Frisk, wiretapping Muslims, arresting protestors, etc.) and by supporting Trump and the Republicans from 2016-2018, and what he clearly plans to do based on the admiration he’s expressed for the governments of Singapore and China. Motivated by overt white supremacism is very clear from his comments on things like redlining and crime, and from his actions as Mayor and continued support of Stop and Frisk until his ‘change of heart’ right as he started looking at running as a Democrat.
“Functionally illeterate conman” is a point against Bloomberg - he has most of the same goals and flaws as Trump, but is better at appearing reasonable to people and putting together deals and coalitions. It makes him more dangerous than Trump. “in chaoots with foreign governments” is a point against Trump, but irrelevant - if someone is going to try to destroy Democracy in the US, whether they do it for themselves or in conjunction with a foreign government is too far down the list of things to worry about.
So just on the points you picked, I’d say that Bloomberg is at least as bad as Trump and arguably worse. And certainly not someone I would vote for.
I oppose Trump’s actions and policies, not his party affiliation or his name in itself. If the Democratic party decides to vote in Bloomberg and he or Trump win, I’ll blame the people who voted for Bloomberg and/or Trump while our descent continues.
Well, I’m not going to address “functionally illiterate” because that’s just hyperbole. And I can’t really address separating families because Bloomy has never been in a position to do so. But his stop and frisk policy doesn’t exactly incline me to think he would be any better.
I’ll cede whatever else you think I’m not addressing because really, the above is all I need to NOT vote for Bloomberg.
Those are the only two outcomes with any chance of occurring in this scenario.
OK, fair enough. This is at least an argument and not handwaving. I disagree with you for the reasons I’ve stated, but at least you put your back into it.
And, just to reiterate, Bloomberg is a piece of shit. But Trump is a ton of shit. I think Bloomberg would be a run-of-the-mill Republican, wrong on everything, but as PJ O’Rourke said of Hillary Clinton, “wrong within normal parameters”. I think he’d be reasonably constrained by the norms of the position, he would comport himself with a modicum of dignity, and he wouldn’t cover up for Russian influence operations. And he probably wouldn’t appoint abjectly unqualified people to key roles. He has an inkling of sense on climate change, and he’s not in bed with the NRA. So, on balance, I think he’d be a slight improvement.
It’s not a language game. It’s mathematics.