…and one who defended a racist policy that terrorised hundreds of thousands of people of colour for a decade. Don’t forget that.
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.
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.
…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.
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.
…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.
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.
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.
And how do you reconcile your views with the information that the polling shows Bloomberg is 3rd among black people in the Democratic primaries (not to mention endorsements from prominent African-Americans such as Henry Louis Gates and Congresswoman Lucy McBath)?
I’ll let the black voters decide. If they feel as strongly as you do - then he won’t get their support and his campaign will tank. Then I’ll be voting for Sanders and pushing any reticent friends I might have to do the same. I’ll learn to love Sanders if he wins the primary.
But the black leaders I’ve heard interviewed, while condemning the practice, ultimately think their constituents should give him a chance. In fact, all the ones I’ve heard seemed to deliver, in different words, the same carefully crafted message.
Here’s one example
Stop and Frisk was wrong
Bloomberg wrong
Really really really wrong
He apologized
An apology is not enough to make it right
He was really really bad
But an apology is a good first step
We should listen to him
We should give him a chance
Then some combination of
Black people care about other issues, too
Black people hate Trump
Good record on gun violence
Other candidates not so good on race either, with a few examples thrown in.
I imagine this is a message that was crafted by a team of experts and filtered through a couple of dozen focus groups. It kind of surprised me that they did not pivot to Bloomberg’s recent record in helping black communities, but they probably thought it would a) dilute the apology b) look like quid pro quo. I’m sure that team Bloomberg anticipated this and it seems that they were well-prepared.
It seems to me that the black community leaders might be a better target for your outrage than individual Bloomberg supporters. Maybe you should start a Pit thread, it might be interesting.
…not compared to Trump. I’ve already conceded that if Bloomberg were to get the nomination everyone should vote and support him.
Compared to the other candidates. 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?
I don’t need to reconcile my views. Henry Louis Gates and Lucy McBath have agency. They are adults. They can support whichever candidate they like. They do not shield you from any of the points I’ve made in this thread.
…I make no claims to speak on behalf of black and latino Americans. The context of “us” should be pretty crystal clear. “Us” is the collective “us”, as in everyone. In context you can sub “everyone” for “us” if you like. As in You want **everyone **to ignore the legacy, ignore the trauma, pretend that this didn’t really happen.
Like I said, you’re barely debating anymore. You’re brow-beating people into…saying…or…believing…something. No one is pretending SaF didn’t happen. And people *are *talking about the legacy, it’s all over the fucking news right now. It was a terrible thing. And despite that, Bloomberg is rising in the polls, among PoC and communities all over the US. Even in places where Democratic voters are majority black, and he’s not even on the ballot or campaigning. I don’t know what to tell you, fella, his SaF legacy doesn’t seem to be deal-breaker you think it is (or should be) among African-American voters. Apparently, you don’t speak for all PoC.
But you just don’t seem to give a whit what anyone says here. You’re simply using this thread as your soapbox. You desperately want this to be something more than it currently is, and you keep coming back in here over and over and making vile implications about how we’re doing *this *terrible thing or ignoring *that *heinous thing. But that’s not debate, that’s browbeating. Seems like what you may be looking for is a good Bloomberg Pit thread.
My comments were about Trump and those who say Bloomberg is as bad as Trump. I’m a Warren supporter. I don’t intend on voting for anyone else before the general election (Georgia’s primary is in late March and I assume Senator Warren will still be in).
I think listening to black voters and leaders on this issue is incredibly helpful. If they think that Bloomberg has atoned, then maybe it’s worth asking why and listening.
