OK, what happens with climate change if neither Warren nor Bloomberg is the nominee?
It damn sure isn’t a game. But we’ve got plenty of candidates for the Dem nomination who will let the GOP filibuster any plan to deal with global warming, because some stupid Senate rule is more important than the fate of the Earth.
But YOU - you will sideline yourself if Bloomberg’s the nominee, and let the world fry.
Because the socialist doesn’t know what he’s doing, and even given the huge role that wealth inequality plays in this country right now, it’s still at most the second most urgent and important issue we have to deal with.
But if you don’t believe in global warming, or believe we can wait until the 2030s to start doing something about it, then we are starting from very different places.
^ This.
We are being treated, in this thread, to the straight GOP - Kremlin line* on Bloomberg. Trump and his enablers are very, very, very worried about Bloomberg. The anti-Bloomberg arguments:
[ul]
[li]Bloomberg is a billionaire, which means he’s evil! That means he’s an oligarch!—here the GOP/K line ignores the actual definition of ‘oligarch,’ using it as a generic snarl word. The idea that billionaire = evil is clearly childish and unintelligent. Some billionaires are evil, as are some poor people. (Bloomberg needs to make clear that he supports progressive, not regressive, tax policies.)[/li][li]Bloomberg is a racist!—again, this is for African-American voters (and possibly other voters of color if the accusation is that Bloomberg hates all non-whites) to decide. It is not for others to decide.[/li][li]Bloomberg is a sexist!—Any and all evidence for this assertion should be examined. It’s doubtful that Bloomberg has a record that can match Trump’s, but any record he does have should be looked at. Voters will have to decide which of the two of them is more likely to treat women fairly.[/li][li]Bloomberg is a fascist!—This is the least-supported GOP - Kremlin claim. They are really going to have to put in some work on this one.[/li][li]Bloomberg is trying to buy the election!—Every candidate is trying to buy the election; some just have less money. That said, Bloomberg would be smart to make a commitment to work against Citizens United (by making it a priority to appoint SCOTUS justices who oppose it, and by working with whatever legislation a Democratic Congress could come up with to mitigate its effects).[/li][li]Sanders fans won’t vote for Bloomberg; they’ll stay home or vote write-in or 3rd-party if Bloomberg is the candidate, so you’d better vote for Sanders —here the GOP/K is showing its hand most openly. And it’s a weak one. ‘We’ll take our ball and go home if Sanders isn’t the candidate!!!1!!!’ won’t convince many voters to embrace Sanders.[/li][/ul]
*I am not accusing any particular posters of working for any particular political entities. I’m just saying that in this thread, we are seeing people post the GOP - Kremlin arguments intended to make sure that Trump faces an easier-to-beat opponent in November.
…but it isn’t terrible enough for you to withdraw your support.
Gotcha.
And its all over the fucking news right now both because its important and because some people are trying to downplay his legacy and other people aren’t going to let that happen.
Yep.
Propaganda is a powerful thing.
Bloomberg is trying to buy the nomination and he’s got enough money to give it a pretty good shot.
You seem to think this is about African-American voters. It isn’t. The African-American people have been affected by institutional racism since America was founded. The country is currently in the grips of a white supremacist regime. They aren’t at issue here. They can vote and support who they like. They are not a shield to your opinions.
This is about propaganda. This is about white voters and white people who are sweeping Bloomberg’s legacy under the rug. Its white-washing history. I’ve talked at length in other threads how information is siloed now. That we’ve set up personal feed-back loops so that we all have the ability to only see and hear the information that we want to hear that makes us comfortable. You aren’t going to break those feedback loops by not talking about this.
I disagree with what people are saying here. So I’m debating them.
You desperately want to make Bloomberg’s support of a racist unconstitutional policy that terrorised and traumatized hundreds of thousands of people of colour something less of what it actually was.
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?
Not at all. You can listen to historian [URL=“https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/1228133252906520576”]Michael](South Carolina : President: Democratic primary Polls | FiveThirtyEight)Harriot. Or Charles M Blow. Sean Perryman. Jamaal Bowman. Briahna Joy Gray. Their opinion matters. Your opinion matters. You’ve mentioned my country of origin yet again. The country I live in doesn’t matter. I’m allowed to participate in this debate.
…I was taken out of context. Do you accept that?
Do you think I’m not listening to black voters and leaders? I’ve cited many so far in this thread. Most of those that I’ve listened to don’t think a brief apology and a twitter post means that Bloomberg has atoned.
But none of those people are participating in this thread so I can’t debate them here. But you are here. Do you think that Bloomberg has atoned? Should he be forgiven?
In my case, I feel that we need ( to quote from a link upthread) unlimited money, elite intelligence and Machiavellian ethics in order to have a chance in November.
I’m sorry, but I am incredibly cynical. I don’t think the Democrats fully comprehend what they are going to be up against. I think if Sanders is the nominee he’ll be ratfucked into oblivion by September. Look at what a good job they did on Biden.
This is going to be a nasty dirty big money fight. If it’s Sanders or Bloomberg the Republicans will have ALL the special interest money as neither candidate will accept money from Big Oil or Big Pharma or any corporate interest ( except, in Bloomberg’s case - Big Mike ).
It’s just not going to be possible to counter that with small donations from individual voters. This forum is not typical of the electorate. Most voters aren’t going to seek out information, you have to reach out to them. I’m early voting tomorrow or Monday and I still haven’t seen one ad for Buttigieg or Klobuchar. I still maintain lots of voters barely know who they are. I think I saw my first Sanders ad yesterday.
I really dislike money in politics but that’s the game we’re playing now, and we need all the firepower we can get.
A freaking out foreigner is less useful than you might think, Banquet. It could even be actively harmful to your pet causes in the US.
“Most of those that [you’ve] listened to” support your opinion? Yeesh…
…yes: most of those that I’ve listened to don’t think a brief apology and a twitter post means that Bloomberg has atoned. Do most of the people you’ve listened think otherwise? What do you think? Do you think Bloomberg has atoned?
:rolleyes:
Disclaimer: I’m not a person of color, so take my commentary for whatever it’s worth.
But my own take is that while Bloomberg has blind spots and he’s biased, he generally isn’t racist or bigoted. I can’t claim to know all that much about Bloomberg at this point, but it seems to me that if he’s guilty of anything, it might be that he sometimes treats community problems, which require a soft human touch, in the same fashion that he treats a problem he might encounter in the business world. And he uses language that might be used to describe a challenge in the marketplace to describe complex social issues, which inevitably require greater awareness and sensitivity.
Oh please, you really think Bloomberg is going to carry out the structural changes needed to revamp the economy and resusitate the moribund American political culture? He can’t do that because he’s part of the problem, much like when Gorbachev tried to reform the USSR but couldn’t because* it was the system itself *which needed to be gotten rid of. Bloomberg will just tinker around the edges and call it quits.
The Onion, of course.
Maybe you didn’t actually read what you quoted?
That’s the only way I can make sense of your ‘reply.’
Anyone who truly believes that Warren or Bloomberg are the only options if one is concerned about climate change needs to get on back to the Laz-E-Boy tout de suite. Thanks, I have a candidate who actually cares about climate change AND who has plans AND legislation on record to address that.
Not compared to Warren, but Warren’s campaign is clearly sinking.
Before the Dems can do anything meaningful about global warming, they need to do three things: win the White House, win the Senate, and kill the filibuster. The Senate won’t kill the filibuster without being pushed. Biden’s not going to push it. Bernie’s not going to either. Last I checked, Klobuchar was in favor of keeping the filibuster. And Mayo Pete will do whatever his owners tell him to.
So yeah, between the fact that Bloomberg’s already clearly quite serious about addressing climate change, and the reasonable expectation that he’d regard that arcane Senate tradition as a piece of bullshit that neither he nor America should have to put up with, with the future of the world on the line - yeah, Bloomberg’s way better, despite being horrible.
Because climate change will involve the whole fucking planet, for centuries to come. Not just one city or even one country.
For me, it’s not a question of whether Bloomberg’s apologized or atoned. It’s just: what are the others (besides Warren) going to do as President when McConnell says he’s got 41 votes and then some to sustain a filibuster to block climate change legislation? The answer appears to be: nothing. Oh well, we lost, too bad for the planet and everyone in it. Too bad, grandkids: Mitch filibustered, and we couldn’t possibly have gotten rid of the filibuster.
I’m willing to dance with the devil, if the devil won’t put up with that bullshit.
And who might that be? And what will s/he do when Mitch filibusters? Because that’s been the key question throughout this campaign.
For someone who has already said you’d sideline yourself if it’s Trump v. Bloomberg and let the planet fry, you sure are self-righteous about all this.
I tend to read a variety of opinions, not stick with only those that validate mine. Ymmv, and apparently it does.
I already explained what I think here. You disagree. I’m done with this.
…I read a variety of opinions as well. Hence **most **people hold a stance that I agree with. Many others do not.
You haven’t really. You’ve complained that “I’m not debating”, then when I’ve thrown questions that are up to debate back at you you’ve ignored them. If you are done that’s fine. But I don’t really know if you think Bloomberg has atoned or not.